Skip to main content

Full text of "Roman Catholic opposition to papal infallibility"

See other formats 


: 


ROMAN    CATHOLIC    OPPOSITION    TO 
PAPAL    INFALLIBILITY 


I  L53R 


ROMAN    CATHOLIC 

OPPOSITION  TO 
PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY 


BY  W.   J.   SPARROW   SIMPSON 

CHAPLAIN  OF  ST  MARY'S  HOSPITAL,  ILFORD 


LONDON 
JOHN   MURRAY,  ALBEMARLE   STREET,  W, 

1909 

LIBRARY 


PREFACE 

THE  following  pages  have  been  written  to  show  the 
difficulties  experienced  by  Roman  Catholics  in  assent 
ing  to  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility.  No  attempt 
is  here  made  to  write  a  complete  account  of  the 
Vatican  Council.  Indeed,  many  subjects  discussed  in 
that  Assembly  are  entirely  omitted.  Our  interest  is 
with  one  doctrine  alone.  What  is  attempted  is,  simply 
to  sketch  the  inner  history  of  Roman  opposition  to 
the  dogma  in  different  countries  and  several  centuries, 
until  and  after  the  memorable  Decree  of  i8th  July  1870. 
We  are  simply  concerned  to  show  the  process  by  which 
a  very  considerable  section  of  Bishops,  priests,  and 
laity  in  the  Roman  Church  were  constrained  to  pass 
from  one  belief  to  its  opposite. 

The  literature  of  the  subject  is,  of  course,  immense. 
A  considerable  part  of  the  details  here  recorded  have 
never  appeared  in  English  before.  They  lie  buried  in 
enormous  German  treatises,  or  in  the  vast  official  Acta 
of  the  Council ;  or  in  the  documentary  collections  of 
Cecconi,  Von  Schulte,  Friedrich,  Friedberg,  and  many 
others ;  or  in  scattered  pamphlets  and  periodicals  to 
which  access  is  now  by  no  means  easily  obtained. 

The  materials  for  a  history  of  the  opposition  to  the 
doctrine  have  of  recent  years  largely  increased.  All 


VI 


PREFACE 


the  principal  actors  in  the  Vatican  disputes  have,  by 
this  time,  passed  away  ;  and  a  large  series  of  biographies 
have  placed  at  our  disposal  private  letters  never  pub 
lished  while  they  lived. 

But  it  will  be  obvious  that  an  Ultramontane 
biographer  of  a  Bishop  who  vehemently  opposed  the 
doctrine  may  be  gravely  perplexed  between  the  con 
flicting  claims  of  history  and  of  edification.  His  loyalty 
to  truth,  his  reverence  for  the  personage  of  whom  he 
writes,  his  regard  for  living  authority,  with  its  tremendous 
powers  to  revise,  cancel,  or  condemn,  his  proper  dis 
inclination  to  scandalise  the  faithful  by  rigorous  records 
of  episcopal  unbelief,  or  to  reveal  the  family  disunions 
before  an  incredulous  world — are  elements  which,  when 
they  coexist,  may,  even  in  the  sincerest  mind  possibly 
blend  together  in  very  various  proportions.  At  any  rate 
the  biographies  of  certain  great  French  Bishops  of 
the  Vatican  struggle  manifest  marked  reluctance  and 
hesitation  in  recording  fully  the  facts.  And  even  when 
the  facts  have  been  fairly  fully  recorded,  the  English 
translator  has — for  whatever  reasons — condensed  them, 
we  had  almost  said  mutilated  them,  beyond  recognition. 

The  recently  published  selection  of  Lord  Acton's 
letters  has  increased  our  knowledge  of  his  attitude 
toward  the  Infallibility  Decree ;  but  the  entire  omission 
of  correspondence  during  ten  most  critical  years  of 
the  struggle  suggests,  what  other  considerations  endorse, 
that  there  is  yet  considerably  more  remaining  unrevealed. 

Still,  with  whatever  drawbacks,  the  resources  at  a 
writer's  disposal  to-day  are  vastly  greater  than  they 
were  some  years  ago. 


PREFACE  vii 

Accordingly  the  following  pages  are  written  under 
a  strong  sense  that  the  material  is  ample,  that  the 
history  of  the  minority  has  never  yet  for  English  people 
been  fully  told,  and  with  a  desire  to  supply  the  omission. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  adverse  criticisms  herein 
repeated  are  almost  entirely  derived  from  Roman 
Catholic  sources,  and  are,  as  far  as  possible,  given 
in  the  actual  words.  Protestant  criticism  has  been 
systematically  excluded.  The  object  being  simply  to 
describe  how  the  doctrine  of  Pontifical  Infallibility 
appeared ;  what  difficulties,  intellectual,  historic,  and 
moral,  it  created  ;  what  fierce  and  desperate  strife  its 
increasing  ascendency  awakened  ;  how,  and  with  what 
results,  moral  and  intellectual,  it  was  finally  regarded, 
not  by  the  outer  world,  nor  by  other  religious  com 
munions,  but  by  clergy  and  laity  within  the  limits  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

Since  these  pages  have  passed  through  the  press, 
Turmel's  Histoire  du  Dogme  de  la  Papaute  has  been 
placed  upon  the  Roman  Index  of  prohibited  books 
(5th  July  1909).  It  is  therefore  among  that  lengthy 
list  of  modern  writings  which  no  member  of  the  Roman 
Obedience  may  "dare  to  read  or  retain."  The  interests 
of  edification  are  conceived  by  Authority  as  incom 
patible  with  those  of  historical  research.  Such  pro 
cedure  deprives  the  historian  of  that  freedom  to  report 
results  without  which  history  cannot  be  written. 

The  author  desires  to  express  his  deep  indebtedness 
to  the  kindness  of  the  Reverend  Darwell  Stone, 
Librarian  of  the  Pusey  House,  who  has  read  through 
the  proof  sheets  of  this  book.  He  is  of  course  in  no 


viii  PREFACE 

way  responsible  for  its  contents;  but  it  has  been  the 
greatest  privilege  to  have  the  encouragement  and  aid 
of  so  critical  and  learned  an  adviser. 

NOTE. — The  number  of  Bishops  who,  though  resident 
in  Rome,  absented  themselves  from  the  Vatican  Council 
on  the  day  of  the  Decree  is  variously  given  on  page  268 
as  91,  on  page  271  as  70,  and  on  page  281  as  more 
than  80.  It  will  be  noticed  that  these  variations  are 
due  to  the  authors  quoted ;  the  first  being  that  given 
by  Quirinus  ;  the  second  by  the  letter  of  the  Opposi 
tion  to  the  Pope ;  the  third  by  Dr  Newman. 


LIST   OF   AUTHORITIES 

THE  following  list  of  books  has  been  compiled,  partly 
to  show  the  editions  to  which  references  have  been 
made,  and  partly  as  a  help  to  study.  It  is,  of  course, 
needless  to  say  that  such  a  list  has  no  pretensions 
whatever  to  completeness. 

ACTA.     ConciL  Vaticani.  Collectio  Lacensis.     T.  vii.     1892. 
ACTON.    History  of  Freedom. 

„          Sendschreiben  an  einem  Deutschen  Bischof.     1870. 
ALZOG.    History  of  the  Church. 
ANONYMOUS.     Ponrquoi  le  Clerge   Fran$ais  est   Ultramontane. 

1879- 

„  Ce  qui  se passe  au  Concile.     1870. 

AQUINAS.     Opuscula  Selecta.     Paris.    4  vols.     1884. 

„  In  Sententiis.     3  vols.     Parma  Edit. 

ARGENTRE,  DJ.    Elementa  Theologica.     Paris.     1702. 
AUGUSTINE.    Works.    Gaume's  Edition. 

BARRAL.     Defense  des  Libertcs  de  FEglise  Gallicane.     1817. 
BAUNARD.    Hist,  de  Card.  Pie.    2  vols.     Paris.     1886. 
BAUSSET,  Card.    Histoire  de  Bossuet.    4  vols. 
BELLARMINE.    De  Controversiis.    Works.     11  vols.    Paris.    1874. 
BERGIER.    Diet,  de  Theologie.    12  vols.      Paris.     1876. 
BERRINGTON  &  KIRK.    Faith  of  Catholics.     1830. 
BILLUART.     De  Ecclesia. 
BONNECHOSE.     Hist.  C.  Constance. 

BOSSUET.     Works.    Ed.  F.  Lachat.   30  vols.    Paris.     1864. 
BOTALLA.     Infallible  Authority  of  the  Pope. 
BOURGEOIS  ET  CLERMONT.    Rome  et  Napoleon.    3  vols.     1907. 
BRYCE.    Biographical  Studies. 

BUTLER.     Historical  Memorials  of  the  English  Catholics. 

ix 


x  LIST   OF   AUTHORITIES 

Cambridge  Modern  History — French  Revolution. 

CARSON.    Reunion  Essays.     1903. 

CECCONI.      Histoire    du    Concile    du    Vatican.      French    transl. 

4  vols.     1887. 

CHAUVIN.    Le  Pere  Gratry.     1901. 
CHOUPIN  L.     Valeur  des  Decisions  Doctrinale.     1908. 
CHRISMANN.    Regula  Fidei  Catholiccz.     1854. 
CHRISTOPHE.     Histoire  de  la  Papaute,  pendant  le  XIV.  Siecle. 

3   vols.     1853. 

CLIFFORD,  Lord.    Letters  to  the  Earl  of  Winchelsea. 
COBB,  G.  F.     Few  Words  on  Reunion.     1869. 
CONSALVI,  Card.     Memoires.     2  vols.     Cretineau-Joly.     1864. 
Correspondant.     loth  Feb.  1906.     Articles  by  Thureau  Dangin. 
CYPRIAN.     Ed.  Hartel.     3  vols. 

DECHAMPS.    L  Infallibility  et  le  Concile  General.     1869. 

DENZINGER.    Enchiridion.     1854. 

DoLLlNGER    &    REUSCH.     Die    Selbstbiographie    des    Cardinals 

Bellarmin. 

„  .     Declarations  and  Letters. 

DUCHESNE.     Beginnings  of  'the  Temporal Power  of 'the  Pope.    1908. 
DUPANLOUP.     Observations.     1869. 

„  .  Lettre  sur  lefutur  Concile  (Ecum^nique  addressee  par 
Mgr.  LEveque  d?  Orleans  au  clerge"  de  son  Diocese. 
1868. 

„  .  SeeChapon.  Mgr.  Dupanloup  et  la  Liberte.  1889. 
and  Revue  du  Clerge  Fran$ais.  1st  May  1909, 
P-  375- 

FESSLER.     True  and  False  Infallibility.     1871. 
FLEURY.    Histoire  Ecclesiastique.    Avignon.     1777. 
FoiSSET.     C.  de  Montalembert. 
FOLLENAY.     Vie  de  C.  Guibert.     2  vols. 
FoULON.     Darboy.     1 889. 
FRANZELIN.    De  Traditione. 
FRIEDBERG.    Aktenstiicke.     1876. 
FRIEDRICH.    Documenta  ad   illustrandum    Cone.    Vat.     2   vols. 

1871. 

„  Db'llinger.    Sein  Leben.    3  vols.     Munchen.     1899. 

„  Tagebuch.     1871. 

GALLITZIN.    Defence  of  Catholic  Principles. 
GARNIER.       Liber  Diurnus. 


LIST  OF   AUTHORITIES  xi 

GASQUET.    Lord  Acton  and  his  Circle. 
GERSON.     De  Auferibilitate  Papa  ab  Ecclesia. 

„      .     Life  by  Schwab.     1859. 

GHILARDI.     Torquemada  De  Plenitudine  Potestatis  R.  P.     1870. 
GLADSTONE.     Vaticanism. 
GOSSELIN.     Temporal  Power  of  the  Pope  in  the  Middle  Ages. 

Transl.  by  Kelly  of  Maynooth.     2  vols.     1853. 
GOYAU.     LAllemayne  religieuse.     5  vols.     1905. 
GRANDERATH.     Vatican  Council.    3  vols. 
GRATRY.    Letters. 
GREGOROVIUS.    Roman  Journals. 

GRISAR.    Laintz-Disputationts  Tridentince.     2  vols.     1886. 
GUERANGER.     De  la  Monarchic  Pontificate.     1870. 
GUETTE"E.     Histoire  de  FEglise  de  France.     12  vols.     1856. 
GUILLERMIN.     Vie  de  Mgr.  Darboy.     1888. 

HALIFAX,  Lord.     In  Nineteenth  Century.     May  1901. 
HASENCLEVER.     Das    neue  Dogma  von  der   Unfehlbarkeit   des 

Papstes.     1872. 

HEFELE.     Conciliengeschichte.     First  Edition.     1855. 
Second  Edition. 
French  translation.      12   vols.      Goschler  and  Delarc. 

1859. 
English  translation.     5  vols.  from  2nd  edition.     1872. 

(By  Clark  &  Oxenham.) 

„  Honorius  und  das  sechste  Allgemeine  Condi.     1870. 

HEFELE'S  letters  will  be  found  in  Schulte.  Altkatholicismus  and 
Revue  Internationale  de  Theologie  (pp.  485-506).     1908. 
HOHENLOHE.    Memoirs.    2  vols. 
HURTER.      Compendium    Theologies   Dogmatics.      3   vols.      5th 

edition.     1885. 
HUSENBETH.    Life  of ' Milner.     1862. 

IREN^EUS.    Ed.  Harvey.    2  vols.     1857. 

JANUS.     The  Pope  and  the  Council.     Rivingtons.     1869. 
JEROME.    Ad  Rufinium.    De  Script  Eccles. 
JERVIS.     Hist.  Ch.  France.     2  vols.     1872. 

„  The  Gallican  Church  and  the  Revolution.     1882. 

JOURDAIN.     Hist.  Univ.  Paris. 

KEENAN.     Controversial  Catechism.     1 7th  thousand.     1860. 


xii  LIST  OF   AUTHORITIES 

KETTELER.     Le  Concile  (Ecumtniquc.     Tr.  Belet.     (?)  1869. 

„  Liberte  Antorite,  Eglise.     Tr.  Belet.     1862. 

„  Das  Unfehlbare  lehramt  des  Papstes.     1871. 

Knabenbauer  in  Luc. 
KRAUTHEIMER.    Catechism  of  the  Catholic  Religion.    1845. 

LAGRANGE.    Hist,  de  Dupanloup.    3  vols. 

LAMENNAIS.     CEuvres  Completes.     14  vols.     Paris.    1836. 

„  Correspondance.    Ed.  Forgues.     2  vols.     1863. 

LANGEN.     Das  Vat.  Dogma.     5  vols.     1870,  etc. 
LAYMAN  (Rom.  Cath.).    Reasons  ivhy  a  Roman   Catholic  cannot 

accept  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility  as  defined  by 

the  Vatican  Council.     1876. 
LENORMANT.     Les  Origines  de  FHistoire. 
LETO  (POMPANio).    Eight  Months  at  Rome.     1 876. 
LICHTENBERGER.     Encyclopedic  des  Sciences  Religieuses.     12  vols. 
LIDDON.     Life  of  Pusey.    4  vols. 

LIEBERMANN.     Institutiones  Theologica.     5  vols.     1831. 
LUZERNE,   DE,  Card.     Works.     Migne.     6  vols. 

MAISTRE,  J.  DE.    (Euvres.    8  vols.    Bruxelles.     1845. 
MANNING.    Pastoral.     1867. 

„  Petri  Privilegium. 

MARET.     Du  Concile  General.     2  vols.     1870. 
MARIN.    De  V Infallibilite  Doctrinale.     1870. 
MARTIN,  CONRAD.    Dogmatik. 
MELCHIOR,  CANO.     Opera.    3  vols.    Rome.     1890. 
MlCHELlS.      Der    hdretische    Charakter    des    Infallibilitdtslehre. 

1872. 

MlLNER.     End  of  Religious  Controversy.     Ed.  2.     1819. 
MOZLEY.     Essay  on  Development. 
MURRAY.    Trac tatus  de  Ecclesia  Christi.    3  vols  in  six  parts.    1862. 

NEWMAN.     Letter  to  Bishop   Ullathorne— Standard  Newspaper. 

7th  April  1870. 

„  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk. 

NIELSEN.     Geschichte  des  Papstthums.     2  vols.     1880. 


OLLIVIER  (EMILE).    D Eglise  et  LEtat.    2  vols. 
ORSl.     De  irreformabili  Romani  Pontijicis  in  definiendis  Fidei 
controversiis  judicio.     3  vols.     Rome.     1739. 


LIST  OF   AUTHORITIES  xiii 

PALLAVICINI.    Hist.  C.  Trent. 

PASTOR.     History  of  the  Popes.     English  translation.     1891. 

PERRAUD,  A.    Le  P.  Gratry  ses  Derniers  Jours.     1872. 

PERRON,  Du,  Card.    Les  Ambassadeset Negotiations.    Paris.    1623. 

PERRONE.    De  Traditione. 

PHILLIPPS,  AMBROSE  DE  LISLE.     Union  Review.     1866. 

Pius  IX.     Brief  to  Archbishop  of  Munich.     See  ACTA,  Cone.  Vat. 

PULLER.    Primitive  Saints  and  Roman  Church. 

PURCELL.     Life  of  Manning. 

„  Life  of  Ambrose  de  Lisle  Phillipps.    2  vols.     1900. 

QuiRlNUS.     Letters  from  Rome  on  the  Council.     1870. 

REINKENS.     Ueber  die  Einheit  der  katholischen  Kirche.     1877. 

„  Kniefall  und  Fall  des  Bischop  Ketteler.     1877. 

REUSCH.     Letters  in  Schulte  Altkatholicismus. 
REVIEW.    Dublin.    1869. 

„  Home  and  Foreign.     1863. 

„  Rambler.     1862. 

Revue  des  Deux  Mondes.     1858. 
RICHERIUS.     Vindicia  Doctrines  Majorum.     1683. 
ROSIERE.     Liber  Diurnus.     1869. 
RUDIS.     Petra  Romana.     1869. 
RUMP.     Die  Unfehlbarkeit  des  P.     1870. 
RYDER.    Idealism  in  Theology.     1867. 

SALMON.     Infallibility. 

SCHULTE.    Der  Altkatholicismus.     1887. 

SCHWANE.      Histoire  du  Dogme.      6   vols.      References   to    the 

French  translation  of  the  Dogmengeschichte. 
SICARD.     LAncien  Clerge  de  France.     3  vols. 

Tablet,  the.     1869. 

THEINER.    Acts  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

THUREAU  DANGIN.    La  Renaissance  Catholique  en  Angle terre  an 

xix  Siecle.     3  vols.     1906. 
TURMEL.     Hist.  Theol.  Positive.     1906. 

„  Histoire  du  Dogme  de  la  Papaute.     Paris.     1908. 

ULLATHORNE  (Bp.).  Letter  on  the  Rambler.     1862. 

„  Autobiography.     2  vols. 

„  Expostulation. 

„  Dollingerites, 
UUnivers.     1869, 


xiv  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

VERON,  FRANCIS.    Regula  Fidei.    Ed.  Sebastian  Brunner.     1857. 
VEUILLOT  L.    Rome  pendant  le  Concile. 
VINCENT  of  Lerins.     Commonitorium. 

WARD  (BERNARD).    Dawn  of  the  Catholic  Revival.    2vols.     1909. 

„      (W.).    Life  of  Wiseman.     2  vols.     1900. 

„      (W.  G.).     Essays  on  the  Church's  Doctrinal  Authority. 
WATERWORTH.    Council  of  Trent.    1848. 
WORDSWORTH,  CH.    Miscellanies.    3  vols.     1879. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.   THE  EVIDENCE  OF    SCRIPTURE I 

II.  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS            9 

III.  THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS 31 

IV.  THE  SCHOLASTIC  PERIOD 48 

V.   THE  AGE  OF  THE  REFORMING  COUNCILS   ...  55 

VI.   THE   COUNCIL  OF  TRENT 66 

VII.  CARDINAL   BELLARMINE 72 

VIII.  THE  SORBONNE 79 

IX.   BOSSUET           ....                    ....  85 

X.  OPPOSITION  AMONG  ROMAN  CATHOLICS  IN  ENGLAND  98 

XI.   ULTRAMONTANISM   IN   FRANCE 143 

XII.  DARBOY,       DUPANLOUP,        MARET,        GRATRY       AND 

MONTALEMBERT 157 

XIII.   OPPOSITION   IN   GERMANY— DOLLINGER        .          .          .  1 88 

XIV.   HOHENLOHE  AND   FRIEDRICH 2O7 

XV.  THE   IMMEDIATE    PREPARATIONS  .          .          .  .217 

XVI.  THE  OPENING   OF  THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL  .          .          .  229 

XVII.   THE  VATICAN   DECISION          .  .     '     .          .  .  .238 

XVIII.   THE  MINORITY  AFTER  THE  VATICAN  DECREE  .          .  275 

XIX.   THE   INFALLIBILITY  DOCTRINE 340 

XX.  WHERE   ARE  THE   INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS?           .           .  356 

INDEX 37, 


ROMAN   CATHOLIC   OPPOSITION 
TO   PAPAL   INFALLIBILITY 

CHAPTER   I 

THE   EVIDENCE  OF  SCRIPTURE 

THOSE  who  do  not  identify  history  with  heresy  will 
always  desire  to  know  how  a  Christian  affirmation  of 
the  present  compares  with  the  past.  Whatever  validity 
faith  may  attach  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  to-day, 
there  must  be  reasons  and  reasons  which  demand  and 
justify  an  enquiry  into  the  doctrine  of  other  ages.  If 
serious  discrepancies  would  cause  perplexity,  unforeseen 
harmonies  would  confirm.  In  any  case  the  refusal  to 
examine  is  not  the  product  of  a  genuine  faith.  For, 
after  all,  history  is,  if  on  one  side  human,  on  another 
divine.  Moreover,  the  actual  development  of  human 
thought  must  be  of  profoundest  living  interest.  This 
enquiry,  then,  must  be  undertaken  in  reference  to  the 
doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility.  For  it  is,  in  a  large 
portion  of  modern  Christian  life,  an  existing  affirmation. 
The  question  is,  What  relation  does  the  doctrine  bear 
to  the  facts  of  History?  And  obviously,  first  of  all, 
what  does  Scripture  say  ? 

The  Ultramontane,  so  far  as  he  founds  the  doctrine 
on  Scripture  language,  finds  it  chiefly  in  the  words  of 


2        THE  EVIDENCE  OF  SCRIPTURE     [CHAP. 

our  Lord  to  St  Peter  :  "  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy 
faith  fail  not ;  and  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen 
thy  brethren."1  Now  seeing  that  this  dogma  of  Papal 
Infallibility  would  be,  if  true,  no  less  than  fundamental, 
it  is  necessary  to  dwell  at  length  on  the  asserted 
scriptural  witness  to  the  same.  For  those  who  believe 
that  fundamental  Christian  truth  must  be  traceable  to 
the  records  of  Revelation  must  test  each  doctrine  by 
what  is  told  them  there.  And  we  are  here  concerned 
with  the  express  words  of  Christ.  And  the  issues 
which  depend  on  a  right  understanding  of  the 
Redeemer's  words  are,  as  all  Christians  will  acknow 
ledge,  momentous. 

The  Roman  interpretation  of  this  passage  maintains 
the  following  points  ; — 

1.  That   Christ  here   confers  on   Peter  an  exclusive 
prerogative,  on  the  ground  of  Peter's  superior  position  ; 

2.  That  this  prerogative  is  infallible  insight ; 

3.  That   thereby  he   was   enabled   to   give   infallible 
instructions  to  his  brethren ; 

4.  That  this  prerogative  extends  to  all  Peter's  suc 
cessors  and  to  none  but  those — the  prerogative  being  as 
exclusive  in  its  range  as  it  was  in  its  origin. 

There  is,  however,  another  interpretation  which  has 
been  in  substance  and  in  many  details  accepted  by 
members  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  which  is  unable 
to  find  any  of  these  doctrines  in  the  words  of  Christ. 

There  are  clearly  four  points  to  be  considered : 
Christ's  Prayer ;  Peter's  Faith  ;  Peter's  Brethren  ; 
Peter's  Successors. 

i.  First,  then,  Christ's  Prayer :  I  have  prayed  for  thee. 

i.  Certainly  it  was  an  exclusive  prayer.     Satan  hath 
desired  to  have  you,  collectively;   but  I  have  prayed 
1  Luke  xxii.  32. 


i.]    PRAYER   FOR   PETER  CONDITIONAL  3 

for  thee,  Peter,  individually.  Christ  here  prays  for  the 
one :  for  the  others,  on  this  occasion,  He  does  not  pray. 

Does  not  this  imply,  asks  the  Ultramontane,  the 
superiority  of  the  individual  thus  selected  and  dis 
tinguished?  Does  not  Christ  here  place  the  security 
of  the  many  in  the  security  of  the  one?  If  the  leader 
and  chief  is  protected,  those  who  follow  him  and  obey 
him  will  be  secure.  This  exposition  labours  under  the 
double  defect  of  assuming  a  theory  of  Peter's  supremacy 
and  of  ignoring  the  historical  circumstances  which 
prompted  Christ's  words.  That  the  prayer  was  ex 
clusive  is  true.  But  exclusive  petition  does  not  neces 
sarily  imply  the  greater  superiority  of  the  person  prayed 
for ;  it  may  equally  well  imply  his  greater  need. 
Remembering  that  Peter  alone  was  on  the  verge  of  a 
triple  denial,  no  wonder  he  became  the  object  of  an 
exclusive  prayer.  If  his  confident  self-reliance,  together 
with  his  impulsive  temperament,  laid  him  open  to  perils 
from  which  the  Twelve  were  exempt,  what  else  could 
his  Master  do  than  offer  special  intercession  for 
him  ?  To  build  a  theory  of  permanent  prerogative  as 
universal  teacher  on  the  fact  of  Christ's  exclusive 
petition  is  therefore  to  forget  that  the  historic  circum 
stances,  which  elicited  our  Lord's  concern,  suggest  a 
totally  different  explanation. 

2.  Moreover,  while  we  are  reminded  that  Christ's 
prayer  was  exclusive,  we  should  also  be  reminded  that 
it  was  conditional. 

It  seems  at  first  sight  a  natural  outcome  of  Christian 
piety  to  assume  that  whatever  Christ  prayed  for 
was  certain  to  come  to  pass.  Is  it  not  written,  "  I  know 
that  thou  hearest  me  always"?  But  the  effectiveness 
of  Christ's  prayers  must  take  into  account  our  human 
independence.  To  say  that  the  prayer  of  Christ  must 
necessarily  realise  its  design,  is  really  to  reduce  mankind 


4        THE  EVIDENCE  OF  SCRIPTURE     [CHAP. 

to  a  mechanism  upon  which  the  Spirit  plays.  But 
this  is  false  to  Christian  teaching  and  human  experience. 
The  prayers  of  Christ  are  invariably  conditional  upon 
the  human  response.  They  demand  human  co-operation. 
The  prayer  for  Peter  unquestionably  implies  that  the 
resources  needed  to  discharge  his  function  would  be 
placed  at  his  disposal,  provided  that  he  yielded  his 
will  to  the  offered  grace.  But  that  Peter  would  invari 
ably  fulfil  the  essential  conditions,  Christ's  petition  does 
not  affirm  and  cannot  even  suggest.  It  cannot  mean 
unconditional  security,  exemption  from  the  liabilities 
of  human  weakness  and  imperfection,  apart  from  all 
considerations  of  personal  effort  and  moral  state. 

ii.  The  second  object  for  our  analysis  is  Peter's  Faith — 
and  here  two  points  arise  : —  What  is  meant  by  "faith  " 
and  what  is  meant  by  "fail" 

1.  Now  when  our  Lord  says  "faith,"  the  meaning  is 
in  general  not  difficult  to  ascertain.     The  faith  which,  if 
present,  could  remove  mountains,  or,  if  absent,  hinders 
His  merciful  works,  is  plainly  not  so  much  an  intellectual 
assent  to  a  number  of  propositions,  as  a  moral  relation 
to  a  Person  ;  a  devotion  to  Himself,  demanding  qualities, 
not  only  of  the  intellect,  but  also  of  the  affections  and 
of  the  will.     It  is  a  quality  inseparable  from  love.     It 
may  exist  in  many  varying  degrees. 

2.  What,  then,  is  meant  by  "  fail  "  ?     The  Greek  term 
here  translated  "fail"  sometimes   describes  an  eclipse, 
which  to   the   primitive   imagination   suggested   death, 
much  as  we  talk   of  the   dying   day.     "Thou   art  the 
same  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail,"  x  means  shall  not 
cease,  or  come  to  an  end. 

3.  Accordingly,  by  "a  faith  which  should  not  fail," 

1  Heb.  i.  12. 


i.]  PETER'S   INWARD   FAITH  5 

our  Lord  described  a  personal  devotion  to  Himself, 
which  should  never  cease  to  exist.  But  we  must  care 
fully  distinguish  between  the  inward  quality  of  faith 
and  its  outward  expressions.  St  Peter,  in  the  subse 
quent  denial,  failed  ;  not  in  his  inward  belief,  but  its  out 
ward  expression.  The  failure  was  not  in  his  thoughts 
but  in  his  words.  As  a  fact,  his  outward  expressions  of 
faith  were  not  protected  from  error.  He  said  exactly 
what  his  intellect  contradicted,  what  he  knew  was 
false.  The  natural  inference  is  that  the  prayer  of 
Christ  was  concerned  with  Peter's  inward  spiritual 
state,  not  with  the  outward  phrases.  A  very  able  Roman 
writer  saw  this  plainly  enough.  Consequently,  he  says, 
Christ  demanded  here  for  Peter  two  privileges — not 
merely  one :  first,  that  he  should  never  lose  his  faith ; 
secondly,  that  as  Pope  he  should  never  teach  anything 
contrary  to  the  faith.  That  is  what  the  Ultramontane 
position  would  require.  But  that  is  exactly  what  did 
not  happen  at  the  denial.  The  prayer  of  Christ  did 
not  secure  St  Peter  from  false  expressions.  Nor  did 
it  secure  Peter's  personal  devotion  from  a  temporary 
eclipse.  But  even  if  Peter's  dogmatic  insight  remained 
unclouded,  that  would  help  his  brethren  comparatively 
little  if  his  official  utterances  could  be  mistaken.  And 
it  was  expressly  in  his  utterances  that  he  did  fail. 

iii.   The  third  theme  for  analysis  is  the   Strengthening 

his  Brethren. 

I.  Now  to  strengthen  is  to  give  support.  It  is 
employed  several  times  by  St  Paul.  As  when  he  says : 
"  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  unto  you  some 
spiritual  gift,  to  the  end  ye  may  be  established'' 1  He 
says  he  sent  Timothy  "  to  establish  you,  and  to  comfort 
you  concerning  your  faith." 2  He  speaks  of  "  stablish- 
ing  your  hearts  unblameable  in  holiness  "  ; 8  prays  that 

1  Rom.  i.  ii.  2  i  Thess.  iii.  2.  3  i  Thess.  iii.  13. 


6          THE  EVIDENCE  OF  SCRIPTURE  [CHAP. 

God  will  "comfort  your  hearts  and  stablish  you  in 
every  good  word  and  work";1  and  says  "the  Lord  is 
faithful,  who  shall  stablish  you,  and  keep  you  from 
evil."  2  So  St  Peter  desires  that  God  would  "  stablish, 
strengthen,  settle " 3  the  Christian ;  and  says  that 
Christians  are  "  established  in  the  present  truth." 4 
The  Revelation  of  St  John  again  says :  "  Be  watchful 
and  strengthen  the  things  which  remain,  which  are 
ready  to  die." 5 

This  scriptural  use  of  the  term  "strengthen,"  or 
"  stablish,"  shows  conclusively  that  any  kind  of  moral 
support  may  be  intended.  The  strengthening  may  be 
that  which  Divine  Grace  supplies  ;  or  that  which  comes 
from  the  knowledge  of  the  Truth ;  or  that  which  comes 
from  the  encouragement  of  Christian  ministers.  But  in 
no  solitary  instance  is  there  any  suggestion  of  infalli 
bility  as  essential  to  enable  one  to  be  a  strengthened 
Thus,  "  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy 
brethren,"  would  naturally  mean,  When  thou  hast  by 
repentance  recovered  from  thine  own  moral  infirmity, 
do  thou  become  a  moral  support  to  the  impulsive  and 
the  weak.  It  is  a  merciful  promise  to  St  Peter  before 
his  sin,  of  restoration  to  Apostleship  after  the  sin  had 
been  committed.  It  suggests  that  even  through  the 
denial  he  may  gain  a  humility  and  self-knowledge 
which  may  enlarge  his  sympathies  and  increase  his 
strength.  It  is  all  in  the  moral  rather  than  in  the 
purely  intellectual  sphere. 

2.  But  further :  The  utterance,  "  strengthen  thy 
brethren,"  is  a  command  and  not  a  promise.  We 
cannot  infer,  from  a  duty  enjoined,  its  invariable  fulfil 
ment.  Otherwise,  we  are  all  perfect :  For  this  com 
mand  is  laid  upon  us  all.  Moreover,  whatever  Peter 

1  2Thess.  ii.  17.  2  2  Thess.  iii.  3. 

a  i  Peter  v.  10.  4  2  Peter  i.  12.  6  Apoc.  iii.  2. 


i.]  CHRIST'S  PRAYER  PURELY  PERSONAL  7 

may  have  done,  what  is  certain  is  that  at  Antioch  he  did 
not  strengthen  his  brethren.  All  human  analogy  would 
suggest  a  more  or  less  imperfect  human  endeavour  to 
fulfil  a  divinely  appointed  ideal. 

iv.   The  fourth  and  last  point  for  consideration  is  Peter's 
Successors. 

1.  Now,  first,  our  Lord  does  not  mention  them.     They 
are  not  mentioned  even  by  implication.     There  is  no 
necessary   implication,  unless  we   assume,  a  priori,  as 
some  Roman  writers  do,  that  such  a  prerogative  could 
not   be   restricted   to   a   single   generation,  nor  to   the 
Apostolic   Age;1   and   therefore   that   the    function    of 
Peter  in  strengthening  his  brethren  must  be  continued 
to  his  successors  to  the  end  of  time.     But  by  no  process 
of  interpretation  can  this  be  derived  from  the  words  of 
Christ.     It  can  be  read  into  them  :    it  cannot  be  read 
out   of  them.     Whether   false   or   true,   it   is   certainly 
not  what  our  Lord  has  said. 

Moreover,  since  the  prerogative  here  conferred  on 
Peter  was  the  prerogative  of  sympathy  learnt  by  the 
humiliations  of  failure,  not  the  gift  of  Infallibility,  its 
perpetuation  among  his  successors  could  not  confer  upon 
them  what  it  did  not  confer  on  him.  If  our  exposition 
of  this  prayer  of  Christ  be  correct,  the  extension  of  the 
prerogative  over  a  series  of  successors  would  be  doubt 
less  morally  valuable  but  of  no  dogmatic  use. 

2.  Moreover,  if  the  words,  "  strengthen  thy  brethren," 
apply  to  Peter's  successors,  so  do  the  words  "  when  thou 
art   converted."     Bellarmine  himself  saw  this,  and  was 
disturbed  by  it.   He  suggested  that  "  converted  "  must  not 
be  understood  as  moral  renovation  and  repentance,  but 
as  an  adverb  equivalent  to,  "  in  turn,"  as  if  the  passage 

1  So  Vat.  C. ,  cf.  Knabenbauer  in  Luc. 


8        THE  EVIDENCE  OF  SCRIPTURE  [CHAP.I. 

ran — I  have  strengthened  thee,  do  thou  in  thy  turn 
strengthen  thy  brethren.  Or  else  it  might  mean — so  it 
was  suggested — Having  turned  your  attention  to  them, 
exercise  your  Infallibility.  But  even  if  the  sentence, 
"  when  thou  art  converted,"  bore  no  allusion  to  Peter's 
denial,  still  no  possible  exegesis  can  justly  elicit  the 
Infallibility  of  his  successors  out  of  the  injunction 
"  strengthen  thy  brethren."  Peter's  successors  would  be 
thereby  ordered  to  bestow  moral  support  upon  their 
weaker  brethren.  But  whether  they  would  obey  this 
command  and  fulfil  it  with  more  invariable  exactitude 
than  he  to  whom  it  was  spoken,  is  a  question  of  his 
torical  investigation  and  not  of  a  priori  theory. 

The  preceding  exposition  has  been  very  largely 
derived  from  Roman  Catholic  sources ;  from  the 
writings  of  Bossuet,  Bishop  of  Meaux,  opposing,  in 
behalf  of  the  Church  of  France,  the  Ultramontanism 
of  the  seventeenth  century ;  of  Barral,  Archbishop  of 
Tours,  in  the  early  nineteenth  century;  of  Bishop 
Maret,  and  of  Gratry,  just  before  the  Vatican  Council 
of  1870 ;  of  Dollinger,  prior  to  the  rupture  with  Rome  ; 
of  Archbishop  Kenrick  of  St  Louis,  in  the  speech 
which  he  intended  to  deliver  in  the  Vatican  Council, 
in  exercise  of  his  divine  right  as  a  Bishop,  but  whose 
delivery  was  prevented  by  the  closure  of  the  discussion. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS 

ROMAN  writers  have  differed  greatly  in  their  view  of 
the  Patristic  evidence  for  Papal  Infallibility.  Some 
have  found  very  little  definite  statement  in  the  Fathers, 
upon  which  they  thought  it  wise,  at  any  rate  in  contro 
versy,  to  rely. 

Cardinal  Bellarmine l  makes  but  scanty  appeal  for 
this  doctrine  to  the  Age  of  the  Fathers.  He  contents 
himself  with  asserting  first  that  the  Patriarchal  Churches 
of  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  have  been 
presided  over  by  heretics,  whereas  Rome  has  been 
exempt  from  this  calamity  ; 2  and  secondly,  he  observes 
that  Popes  have  passed  judgment  on  heresies  apart  from 
any  Council,  and  that  their  decisions  have  been  accepted. 
This  asserted  exemption  of  the  Roman  Church  from 
heresy  he  claims  as  identical  with  impossibility  of 
heresy  ;  and  this  acceptance  of  decisions  as  an  acknow 
ledgment  of  Infallibility.  Bellarmine's  meagre  use  of 
the  Patristic  period  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  Papal 
Infallibility  is  strikingly  contrasted  with  his  ample  use 
of  the  same  to  prove  the  primacy  or  the  authority  of 
the  Roman  See.  And  this  difference  of  appeal  in  the 
two  cases  means  a  capacity  to  distinguish  between 
authority  and  Infallibility. 

Other  writers  have  seen  Infallibility  implied  in  every 

1  See  Controv.  2  Cf.  Turmel,  Hist.  Theol.  Positive,  p.  303. 

9 


io  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS      [CHAP. 

recognition  of  authority  or  primacy  ;  in  every  judicial 
sentence  of  the  Roman  See. 

A  third  section  of  Roman  theologians  has  been 
definitely  unable  to  discover  the  doctrine  anywhere  in 
the  Patristic  period.  Among  the  more  critical  and 
historically-minded  of  recent  Roman  writers  there  is  a 
belief  in  the  doctrine,  independent  of  any  evidence  for  it 
in  the  Age  of  the  Fathers ;  indeed  often  coupled  with 
an  acknowledgment  that  the  period  does  not  yield  to 
their  scrutiny  instances  either  of  its  recognition  as  a 
principle,  or  of  its  exercise  as  a  fact.  Advancing  to  the 
Patristic  times  with  the  definition  of  Infallibility  as  given 
in  the  Vatican  Decree,  they  affirm  that  one  essential 
condition  of  its  exercise  is  deliberate  intention  to 
instruct  the  Universal  Church.  All  instruction  not 
given  with  that  express  intention  is  entirely  outside  the 
range  of  Infallibility.  Evidently  the  great  mass  of 
judicial  decisions,  appeals  to  Rome,  recognitions  of  its 
authority,  praises  of  its  impartiality  and  rectitude,  asser 
tions  of  the  danger  of  disobedience  to  its  words,  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  Infallibility ;  and 
are  acknowledged  by  this  school  of  Roman  writers  to 
be  no  proof  of  the  doctrine's  existence.  This  recent 
Roman  attitude  involves  an  entirely  different  estimate 
of  Patristic  evidence  from  that  formerly  prevalent 
among  the  Ultramontanes.  It  brings  the  Ultramontane 
curiously  round  to  agreement  with  the  opposite  school 
as  to  the  actual  contents  of  the  Patristic  period.  There 
is  far  less  readiness  to-day  than  formerly  to  assume  that 
inferences  which  appear  to  a  modern  Ultramontane  neces 
sarily  obviously  involved  in  a  statement  or  a  claim,  were 
really  actually  seen  and  understood  and  accepted  among 
the  primitive  writers  by  whom  the  statement  or  claim  was 
made.  This  is  a  sign  of  a  more  historic  spirit,  and 
therefore  exceedingly  hopeful. 


".]  ST   IREN^EUS  ii 

Of  course  the  doctrine's  recognition  as  a  theory  is 
separable  from  its  exercise  as  a  fact.  Many  Roman 
Catholic  writers  have  not  only  maintained  that  during 
the  Age  of  the  Fathers  no  case  occurs  of  its  exercise ; 
but  that  the  principles  advocated  demonstrate  that 
it  was  not  even  recognised  as  a  theory,  since  by 
those  very  principles  it  is  actually  excluded.  Roman 
opponents  of  the  doctrine  have  also  pointed  out  that 
no  profession  of  belief  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Church 
can  be  adduced  to  prove  belief  in  the  infallibility  of 
the  Pope  for  the  simple  reason  that  many  Roman 
theologians  who  believed  the  former  have  rejected  the 
latter. 

All  that  can  be  done  in  a  limited  space  is  to  select 
the  chief  examples  of  the  Patristic  teaching ;  and  then 
to  show  how  the  Ultramontanes  and  their  opponents 
employed  them. 

I.  A  crucial  instance  is  the  famous  language  of  St 
Irenaeus  : — 

"  It  is  within  the  power  of  all,  who  may  wish  to  see 
the  truth,  to  contemplate  clearly  the  tradition  of  the 
Apostles  manifested  throughout  the  world  in  every 
Church  ;  and  we  are  able  to  enumerate  those  whom 
the  Apostles  appointed  to  be  Bishops  in  the  churches, 
and  their  successors,  quite  down  to  our  time,  who 
neither  taught  nor  knew  anything  like  what  these 
[heretics]  rave  about.  Yet  surely  if  the  Apostles  had 
known  any  hidden  mysteries,  which  they  were  in  the 
habit  of  teaching  to  the  perfect  apart  and  privily 
from  the  rest,  they  would  have  taken  special  care  to 
deliver  them  to  those  to  whom  they  were  also  com 
mitting  the  churches  themselves.  .  .  .  But  because 
it  would  be  too  long  in  such  a  volume  as  this,  to 
enumerate  the  successions  of  all  the  churches,  we  point 
to  the  tradition  of  the  very  great  and  very  ancient  and 
universally  known  Church  which  was  founded  and 


12  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS      [CHAP. 

established  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious  Apostles, 
Peter  and  Paul ; — we  point,  I  say,  to  the  tradition  which 
this  Church  has  from  the  Apostles,  and  to  her  faith 
proclaimed  to  man,  which  comes  down  to  our  time 
through  the  succession  of  her  Bishops.  .  .  .  For  to  this 
Church,  on  account  of  its  more  influential  pre-eminence, 
it  is  necessary  that  every  church  should  resort — that  is 
to  say,  the  faithful  who  are  from  all  quarters  ;  and  in  this 
Church  the  tradition,  which  comes  from  the  Apostles, 
has  ever  been  preserved  by  those  who  are  from  all 
quarters." 1 

This  classic  passage,  says  a  Roman  writer,2  proves 
how  universal  was  the  belief  in  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs 
Infallibility.  It  does  not  merely  state  a  fact :  it  enunci 
ates  a  principle.  Accordance  with  the  traditional 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  here  stated  to  be 
the  duty  of  all  churches.  But  how  could  this  be  so, 
unless  the  Pope  was  the  infallible  organ  of  Apostolic 
teaching?  The  holy  martyr  calls,  says  another,  the 
faithful  of  the  entire  Christian  world  to  the  Roman 
Church,  that  they  may  drink  in  the  Apostolic  truth 
without  fear  of  error  or  misleading.3  What  else  is  this 
but  infallible  authority?4 

On  the  other  side  a  Roman  historian  of  dogmas 
writes  :— 

"  Irenseus  was  not  contemplating  the  case  of  contra 
dictions  between  churches  founded  by  the  Apostles.  .  .  . 
There  existed  at  that  period  complete  agreement  in 
faith  and  doctrine.  Consequently,  the  Fathers  had  no 
cause  to  consider  a  case  of  disagreement  between 
Apostolic  churches."6 

According  to  the  French  Bishop  Maret,6  the  principle 

1  St  Irenaeus,  III.  iii.  pp.  1-2,  trans.  F.  Puller,  p.  20. 

2  Botalla,  i.  p.  79.         3  Perrone,  p.  38.         4  Cf.  Bellarmine,  p.  267. 
6  Schwane,  Histoire  du  Dogme,  i.  p.  667. 

6  Maret,  Du  Candle  Gtntral,  ii.  p.  no. 


ii.]  ST  IREN^EUS  13 

laid  down  by  Irenaeus  is  an  appeal  to  tradition  mani 
fested  in  all  the  Apostolic  churches.  He  considers  that 
truth  is  to  be  found  in  the  tradition  manifested  in  all 
the  Apostolic  foundations.  But  for  the  sake  of  brevity 
it  is  enough  to  consult  the  tradition  of  the  Roman 
Church.  Maret  acknowledges  a  primacy  in  the  Roman 
Church,  but  cannot  believe  that  Irenaeus  would  dis 
allow  the  rightfulness  of  consulting  the  tradition  of  the 
Universal  Church  in  which  Irenaeus  himself  considers 
the  Truth  is  found. 

Gratry,  in  his  famous  letters  during  the  Vatican 
Council,  goes  further  than  this,  for  he  quotes  the 
sequel  to  the  passage  of  Irenaeus,  and  underlines  the 
statement  which  shows  that  the  principle  which  this 
primitive  writer  considers  Catholic  is  an  appeal  to  the 
ancient  Churches  (plural)  and  by  no  means  exclusive 
appeal  to  one. 

"...  It  is  not  then  necessary  to  seek  elsewhere  the 
truth,  since  it  is  easily  found  in  the  Church,  the  Apostles 
having  made  of  the  Church  a  rich  bank,  in  which  they 
have  amassed  all  the  treasures  of  truth ;  so  that  every 
man,  whosoever  will,  can  draw  from  her  the  water  of 
life.  .  .  .  Thus  if  a  dispute  should  arise  relative  to  a 
detail  of  tradition,  should  we  not  have  recourse  to  the 
most  ancient  Churches  (nonne  oporteret  in  antiquissimas 
recurrere  Ecclesias,  in  quibus  Apostoli  conversati  sunt)  in 
which  the  Apostles  themselves  have  lived,  and  learn 
from  them  immediately  what  is  certain  and  clear  upon 
the  question  ?  " x 

Upon  this  passage  Gratry  observes  : — 

"  The  reader  has  here  before  him  the  whole  doctrine 

of    St   Irenaeus   upon    this   subject.     This    doctrine   is 

perfectly   clear.     It   is    almost    the    same    as    that   of 

Tertullian,  who  says  :  '  Run  over  the  Apostolic  Churches, 

1  Gratry's  second  letter. 


i4  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS      [CHAP. 

in  which  are  found  the  chairs  of  the  Apostles,  upon 
which  are  seated  the  Bishops  who  succeeded  them,  in 
which  are  still  read  their  authentic  letters,  each  echoing 
the  voice  and  representing  the  face  of  its  author.  Is 
Achaia  near  to  thee?  Thou  hast  Corinth.  Art  thou 
near  Macedonia  ?  Thou  hast  Philippi ;  thou  hast  the 
Thessalonians.  If  thou  canst  travel  into  Asia,  thou 
hast  Ephesus.  If  thou  art  near  to  Italy,  thou  hast 
Rome,  where  we  can  find  also  authority  at  hand/" 

The  thesis  of  St  Irenaeus,  adds  Gratry,  is  this : — We 
must  bring  back  heretics  "to  the  tradition  of  the 
Apostles,  which,  by  their  successors,  is  preserved  in 
the  Churches."  And  "  when  there  is  any  doubt,  we 
must  have  recourse  to  the  Ancient  Churches." 


2.  In  the  case  of  St  Cyprian  (A.D.  250)  special 
difficulties  arise  owing  to  controversies  on  the  actual 
text.  We  can  only  set  down  the  chief  passage  and 
afterwards  indicate  the  use  made  of  his  principles 
by  Roman  opponents  of  Infallibility. 

"  And  although  after  His  resurrection  He  assigns 
equal  power  to  all  His  Apostles,  .  .  .  nevertheless,  in 
order  to  make  the  unity  manifest,  He  established  one 
Chair  and  by  His  own  authority  appointed  the  origin 
of  that  same  unity  beginning  from  one.  Certainly  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles  were  that  which  Peter  also  was, 
endued  with  equal  partnership,  both  of  honour  and 
office,  but  the  beginning  sets  out  from  unity,  and 
Primacy  is  given  to  Peter,  that  one  Church  of  Christ  and 
one  Chair  may  be  pointed  out ;  and  all  are  pastors  and 
one  flock  is  shown ,  to  be  fed  by  all  the  Apostles  with  one- 
hearted  accord,  that  one  Church  of  Christ  may  be 
pointed  out.  .  .  .  He  that  holds  not  this  unity  of  the 
Church,  does  he  believe  that  he  holds  the  faith?  He, 
who  strives  and  rebels  against  the  Church,  he  who 


ii.]  ST  CYPRIAN  15 

deserts  the   Chair  of  Peter  on  which   the  Church  was 
founded,  does  he  trust  that  he  is  in  the  Church?"1 

Whether  the  passages  underlined  are  Cyprian's  or 
unauthorised  interpolations,  is  the  critical  difficulty. 
They  appear  in  the  earlier  printed  editions,  not,  how 
ever,  without  editorial  misgivings.  But  the  modern 
critical  text2  omits  them.  Many  Roman  theologians 
do  the  same.  Leo  XIII.  himself  omits  them  in  his 
Encyclical  on  the  unity  of  the  Church.  On  the  other 
hand,  their  genuineness  is  still  asserted  by  certain 
Protestant  and  Roman  writers.  In  any  case  all  that 
they  affirm  is  a  Primacy.  No  modern  Romanist  of  the 
historical  school  would  quote  them  as  affirming  infalli 
bility.  Under  these  circumstances  perhaps  it  will  be 
best  to  confine  attention  to  words  whose  genuineness  no 
one  disputes.  The  Ultramontane  emphasised  Cyprian's 
statements  on  the  Primacy:  the  opposing  school,  his 
statements  on  Episcopal  equality.  The  former  quoted 
"  the  principal  Church,  whence  sacerdotal  unity  arose  "  ; 
the  latter  "  the  episcopate  is  one,  it  is  a  whole,  in  which 
each  enjoys  full  possession  "  ;  and  again, "  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles  were  that  which  Peter  was,  endowed  with  equal 
partnership,  both  of  honour  and  office." 

Minority  Bishops  asserted  in  the  Vatican  Council,  on 
the  ground  of  these  two  passages,  that  Ecclesiastical 
power  was  divinely  entrusted  to  Peter  and  to  the  other 
Apostles ;  and  that  it  was  derived  from  them  to  their 
successors  by  Divine  institution.  Accordingly  the 
minority  complained  that  the  exclusive  consideration 
of  Papal  authority  was  irreconcilable  with  Catholic 
truth  and  Cyprianic  principles.  The  equal  authority 
of  the  episcopate  deserved  and  required  an  equal 

1  Cyprian,  De  Unit.  4. 

2  Text  of  the  Vienna  Corpus,  ed.  Hartel. 


16  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS       [CHAP 

exposition.1  Cyprian's  inference  from  St  Matt.  xvi.  18 
was  that  "the  Church  should  be  built  upon  the  Bishops, 
and  that  every  act  of  the  Church  should  be  guided  by 
them  as  presidents." 2 

And  this  is  the  principle  upon  which  Cyprian  acts. 
After  assembling  the  local  Bishops  and  forming  their 
own  decision,  Cyprian  wrote  to  Stephen,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  in  the  following  terms : — 

"  These  considerations,  dear  brother,  we  bring  home 
to  your  conscience  out  of  regard  to  the  office  we  hold 
in  common,  and  to  the  simple  love  we  bear  you.  We 
believe  that  you,  too,  from  the  reality  of  your  religious 
feeling  and  faith,  approve  what  is  religious  as  well  as 
true.  Nevertheless,  we  know  there  are  those  who  cannot 
readily  part  with  principles  once  imbibed,  or  easily 
alter  a  view  of  their  own,  but  who,  without  hurting  the 
bond  of  peace  and  concord  between  colleagues,  hold  to 
special  practices  once  adopted  among  them,  and  herein 
we  do  no  violence  to  any  one  and  impose  no  law.  For, 
in  the  administration  of  the  Church  each  several  prelate 
has  the  free  discretion  of  his  own  will — having  to  account 
to  the  Lord  for  his  action." 3 

Quoting  Cyprian's  own  words  St  Augustine  repeats 
the  passage  from  a  letter  : — 

"For  neither  did  Peter  whom  the  Lord  chose  first, 
and  on  whom  He  built  His  Church,  when  Paul  afterwards 
disputed  with  him  about  circumcision,  claim  or  assume 
anything  and  arrogantly  to  himself,  so  as  to  say  that 
he  held  the  primacy,  and  should  rather  be  obeyed  by 
newcomers.  Nor  did  he  despise  Paul  because  he  had 
before  been  a  persecutor  of  the  Church,  but  he  admitted 
the  counsel  of  truth,  and  readily  assented  to  the 
legitimate  grounds  which  Paul  maintained  ;  giving  us 
thereby  a  pattern  of  concord  and  patience,  that  we  should 
not  pertinaciously  love  our  own  opinions,  but  should 
1  Friedrich,  Doctimenta.  2  Bp.  xxxiii.  3  Ep.  xlvii.  3. 


a.]  ST   CYPRIAN  17 

rather  account  as  our  own  any  true  and  rightful  sugges 
tions  of  our  brethren  and  colleagues  for  the  common 
health  and  weal."1 

Upon  this  Augustine's  comment  is  : — 

"  Here  is  a  passage  in  which  Cyprian  records  what 
we  also  learn  in  Holy  Scripture,  that  the  Apostle  Peter, 
in  whom  the  primacy  of  the  Apostles  shines  with  such 
exceeding  grace,  was  corrected  by  the  later  Apostle 
Paul,  when  he  adopted  a  custom  in  the  matter  of 
circumcision  at  variance  with  the  demand  of  truth.  .  .  .2 

"  Wherefore  the  holy  Cyprian,  whose  dignity  is  only 
increased  by  his  humility,  who  so  loves  the  pattern 
set  by  Peter  as  to  use  the  words ;  '  giving  us  thereby 
a  pattern  of  concord  and  patience,  that  we  should  not 
pertinaciously  love  our  own  opinions,  but  should  rather 
account  as  our  own  any  true  and  rightful  suggestions 
of  our  brethren  and  colleagues  for  the  common  health 
and  weal' — he,  I  say,  abundantly  shows  that  he  was 
most  willing  to  correct  his  own  opinion,  if  any  one  should 
prove  to  him  that  it  is  as  certain  that  the  baptism  of 
Christ  can  be  given  by  those  who  have  strayed  from  the 
fold,  as  that  it  could  not  be  lost  when  they  strayed.  .  .  . 
Nor  should  we  ourselves  venture  to  assert  anything 
of  the  kind  were  we  not  supported  by  the  unanimous 
authority  of  the  whole  Church — to  which  he  himself 
would  unquestionably  have  yielded,  if  at  that  time 
the  truth  of  this  question  had  been  placed  beyond 
dispute  by  the  investigation  and  decree  of  a  General 
Council.  For  if  he  quotes  Peter  as  an  example  for  his 
allowing  himself  quietly  and  peacefully  to  be  corrected 
by  one  junior  colleague,  how  much  more  readily  would 
he  himself,  with  the  Council  of  his  Province,  have  yielded 
to  the  authority  of  the  whole  world,  when  the  truth 
had  been  thus  brought  to  light  ?  For,  indeed,  so  holy 
and  peaceful  a  soul  would  have  been  more  ready  to 
assent  to  the  arguments  of  any  single  person  who  could 

1  Cyprian,  Ep.  Ixxi. 

2  Augustine,  De  Baptismo^  II.  i.  2. 


i8  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS      [CHAP. 

prove  to  him  the  truth ;   and  perhaps  he  even  did  so, 
though  we  have  no  knowledge  of  the  fact." 1 

To  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  Jesuit  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  persistent  refusal  of  Cyprian  to  accept 
the  Pope's  teachings  appeared  very  grave  indeed. 
Cyprian,  says  Bellarmine,  was  not  a  heretic,  because 
those  who  say  that  the  Pope  can  err  are  not  even 
yet  considered  manifestly  heretics.  But  whether 
Cyprian  did  not  commit  a  mortal  sin  in  disobeying 
the  Pope,  Bellarmine  is  not  sure.  On  the  one  hand, 
Cyprian  sinned  in  ignorance.  Thinking  the  Pope  in 
serious  error,  he  was  obliged  to  disobey;  for  no  man 
ought  to  go  against  his  conscience — and  a  Council  of 
eighty  Bishops  agreed  with  him.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  appears  to  have  mortally  sinned,  for  he  disobeyed 
an  apostolic  precept,  and  refused  to  submit  to  the 
judgment  of  his  superior. 

Archbishop  Kenrick's  dogmatic  inference  from  these 
facts  in  the  Vatican  Council  was  as  follows : — 

"When  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  held  mistaken 
views  as  to  the  rebaptism  of  heretics  upon  their  return 
to  the  Church,  and  had  strenuously  defended  them 
against  the  Roman  Pontiff  Stephen,  Augustine  con 
sidered  him  to  be  justified :  because  the  matter  in 
question  had  not  yet  been  elucidated  by  the  authority 
of  a  General  Council.  Thus  Augustine  did  not  regard 
as  decisive  the  Roman  Pontiff's  opinion  which  had 
already  condemned  this  error,  and  by  which,  according 
to  my  opponents,  the  dispute  had  been  already  infallibly 
determined.  Augustine  therefore  was  ignorant  of  the 
doctrine  of  Pontifical  Infallibility.  Had  he  acknow 
ledged  it,  it  must  have  followed  that  Cyprian  was  not 
only  indefensible  for  his  conduct,  but  had  actually 
incurred  condemnation  for  heresy." 

1  Augustine,  De  Baptismo,  II.  iv.  p.  5. 


ii.]  ST  AUGUSTINE  19 

3.  From  the  writings  of  St  Augustine  probably  no 
phrase  has  been  more  often  quoted  in  behalf  of  papal 
inerrancy  than  that  in  which,  referring  to  the  Pelagian 
controversy,  he  says  :  — 

"Already  on  this  matter  two  Councils  have  sent  to 
the  Apostolic  See,  whence  also  answers  have  been 
received.  The  cause  is  finished,  would  that  the  error 
were  also  finished."  l 

In  other  words,  says  a  Roman  writer,2  Pope  Innocent  I. 
has  determined  the  matter.  The  Pontifical  Decree  has 
settled  that  the  truth  is  on  Augustine's  side.  Could 
it  do  so  unless  it  were  infallible?  To  another  writer 
this  inference  is  indisputably  clear.3 

It  is,  however,  more  than  questionable  whether  this 
exposition  would  satisfy  Roman  critical  writers  of  to 
day.  For  they  do  not  claim  Pope  Innocent's  reply  to 
the  African  Bishops  as  an  exercise  of  Infallibility.  Thus 
Augustine's  criticism  is  no  evidence  of  his  belief  in 
Innocent's  inerrancy. 

"St  Augustine  and  all  his  century,"  says  a  Bishop 
of  the  Roman  Church,  "like  the  centuries  before  him, 
placed  the  supreme  authority,  the  authority  which  cannot 
fail,  not  in  the  Pope  alone,  but  in  the  Pope  and  the 
Episcopate."  4 

Nevertheless,  the  passage  was  appealed  to  by  the 
Ultramontanes  in  the  Vatican  struggle.  They  assigned 
to  St  Augustine  the  statement:  "Rome  has  spoken, 
the  cause  is  finished."  This  was  the  form  in  which 
Augustine's  sentiments  were  commonly  quoted  for 
centuries.  Gratry's  criticism  upon  it  represents  the 
opposition. 

1  St  Aug.  Serm.  cxxii.     Gaume,  v.  930 

2  Botalla,  i.  p.  77.  *  Perrone,  p.  43. 
4  Maret,  i.  p.  161. 


20  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS      [CHAP. 

"Rome  has  spoken,  the  cause  is  finished.  It  is 
certain  that  this  formula  of  St  Augustine  possesses 
something  decisive  and  absolute  about  it  like  an  axiom. 
It  says  everything.  ( Rome  has  spoken,  the  cause  is 
finished.'  Rome  has  spoken ;  all  is  said,  the  rest  is  of 
no  consequence. 

"  But  the  objection  to  this  is  that  St  Augustine  never 
said  that  at  all." 

Gratry  then  quotes  the  passage  as  it  actually  occurs. 
To  Gratry's  mind  the  real  words  do  not  even  imply  that 
the  judgment  of  Rome  by  itself  is  everything  ;  while  the 
misquoted  formula  does.1 

4.  Constantly  appealed  to  again  are  the  words  of  St 
Jerome. 

"  I  know  that  the  Roman  faith  praised  by  the  Apostle's 
voice  does  not  accept  suggestion  of  such  a  kind. 
Although  an  angel  taught  otherwise  than  that  which 
has  been  once  proclaimed,  strengthened  by  the  authority 
of  St  Paul,  it  could  not  change." 2 

"  Upon  this  rock  I  know  that  the  Church  is  builded. 
I  entreat  you,  authorise  me  by  your  letters  either  to 
assert  or  not  to  assert  three  substances.  I  shall  not 
fear  to  assert  three  substances  if  you  order  me."  3 

Here,  then,  St  Jerome  is  found  affirming  that  the 
Roman  Church  cannot  fail,  and  that  he  who  accepts 
its  instruction  cannot  be  misguided.4 

On  the  other  hand,  Bishop  Bossuet  appeals  to 
Jerome's  own  account  of  Pope  Liberius  that  he  was 
induced  to  endorse  heresy,  and  that,  overcome  by  the 
weariness  of  exile,  he  subscribed  to  heretical  error.5 

1  Second  letter.  2  Ad  Rujinum^  ii. 

3  Ep.  ad  Damasum,  ii.  p.  131.  4  Perrone,  p.  42. 

5  Bossuet,  xxii.  p.  227.    Jerome,  De  Script.  Eccles.  and  Chronicon. 


H.]  GELASIUS  21 

The  question,  therefore,  arises  whether  Jerome  would 
not  have  feared  to  follow  an  example  which  he  so 
describes.  Can  he  who  so  describes  Liberius  have 
believed  that  he  who  accepts  papal  instruction  cannot 
be  misguided? 

5.  Another  example  is  the  striking  utterance  of  Pope 
Gelasius. 

"  This  it  is  against  which  the  Apostolic  See  is  greatly 
on  its  guard,  that  the  glorious  confession  of  the  Apostle, 
since  it  is  the  security  of  the  world,  should  not  be  defiled 
by  the  least  error  or  contagion.1  For  if — which  God 
avert,  and  we  trust  cannot  happen — such  a  misfortune 
should  occur,  how  could  we  venture  to  resist  any  error, 
or  how  should  we  be  able  to  correct  the  wandering  ?  " 

Gelasius  teaches  here,  said  Bellarmine,  that  the 
Apostolic  See  cannot  err.  For  since  the  security  of  the 
world  depends  upon  its  utterances,  if  it  were  to  err  the 
whole  world  would  be  in  error  with  it.2 

Bossuet,  on  the  other  hand,  replied  as  follows :  A 
Roman  Synod  addressed  to  Bishops  the  question  :  How 
could  they  correct  the  error  of  the  people  if  they  were 
in  error  themselves  ?  This  was  not  an  encouragement 
to  think  themselves  infallible,  but  a  warning  to  take 
precautions  against  being  deceived.  Similarly  Gelasius 
claims  that  consciousness  of  the  disastrous  results  which 
would  attend  its  deception  has  deepened  the  cautious 
ness  of  the  Roman  See.  To  infer,  however,  from  the 
character  of  the  results,  the  impossibility  of  the  occur 
rence  is,  says  Bossuet,  the  utterly  illogical  conclusion 
that  what  ought  not  will  not  be.  The  dangerous 
character  of  the  results  which  would  follow  from  decep 
tion  of  the  Roman  See  do  not  prove  the  impossibility  of 
its  occurrence.  All  they  prove  is  the  urgent  necessity 

1  Bossuet,  xxii,  p.  277.  z  Works^  ii.  p.  83. 


22         THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS         [CHAP. 

for  care  and  deliberation.  And  this  is  what  Gelasius 
implies.  For  his  language  is — "which  God  avert,  we 
trust  it  cannot  happen."  But  this  is  the  language  of 
prayer  and  piety ;  it  is  not  the  certainty  of  a  truth 
revealed.  Gelasius  has  every  hope  that,  contingently 
on  compliance  with  the  necessary  conditions,  this 
disaster  will  not  be  permitted  to  take  place.  But  we 
may  not  transpose  hope  into  fact.  Tested  by  history, 
urges  Bossuet,  individual  occupants  of  the  Roman  See 
have  grievously  misled  the  Church.  Liberius  and 
Honorius,  as  far  as  in  them  lay,  did  actually  deceive 
the  world.  Yet  the  world  was  not  deceived  :  for  other 
remedies  exist  against  calamities  such  as  these.  The 
language  of  Gelasius  is  one  of  the  most  magnificent 
from  the  Roman  See.  But  it  is  the  language  of  a 
pious  confidence,  not  a  dogma  of  the  immutable  faith. 

6.  The  classic  expression  of  the  proper  method,  accord 
ing  to  the  Ancient  Church,  for  distinguishing  Catholic 
Faith  from  falsehood,  is  the  famous  Canon  of  St  Vincent 
of  Lerins.  We  propose  to  summarise  his  principles,  and 
then  to  record  their  controversial  use  within  the  Roman 
Communion. 

"  Moreover,  in  the  Catholic  Church  itself  all  possible 
care  must  be  taken  that  we  hold  that  faith  which  has 
been  believed  everywhere  always  by  all.  For  that  is 
truly  and  in  the  strictest  sense  Catholic,  which,  as  the 
name  itself  and  the  reason  of  the  thing  declare,  com 
prehends  all  universally. 

"  This  rule  we  shall  observe  if  we  follow  universality, 
antiquity,  consent.  We  shall  follow  universality  if  we 
confess  that  one  faith  to  be  true,  which  the  whole  Church 
throughout  the  world  confesses  ;  antiquity,  if  we  in  no 
wise  depart  from  those  interpretations  which  it  is 
manifest  were  notoriously  held  by  our  holy  ancestors 
and  fathers  ;  consent,  in  like  manner,  if  in  antiquity 


ii.]  ST  VINCENT  OF   LERINS  23 

itself  we  adhere  to  the  consentient  definitions  and 
determinations  of  all,  or  at  least  of  almost  all  priests 
and  doctors."1 

Vincent's  famous  Canon  states  the  appeal  to  tradi 
tion  in  a  triple  form  :  in  relation  to  place  and  time  and 
persons.  The  test  of  a  doctrine's  apostolic  character 
is  its  universality  in  place  and  time.  That  which  com 
mands  a  consent  virtually  coextensive  with  the  Church's 
existence,  across  the  entire  world  geographically,  and 
across  the  entire  Christian  ages  historically,  constitutes 
the  Catholic  Faith. 

Vincent's  application  of  this  test  to  several  instances 
shows  alike  its  clearness  and  its  use. 

i.  First  Case — If  the  Local  oppose  the  Universal. 

"  What,  then,  will  a  Catholic  Christian  do  if  a  small 
portion  of  the  Church  have  cut  itself  off  from  the 
communion  of  the  universal  faith  ? 

"  What,  surely,  but  prefer  the  soundness  of  the  whole 
body  to  the  unsoundness  of  a  pestilent  and  corrupt 
member  ?  " 

ii.  Second  Case — If  the  Modern  oppose  the  Ancient. 

"What  if  some  novel  contagion  seek  to  infect  notmerely 
an  insignificant  portion  of  the  Church,  but  the  whole  ? 

"  Then  it  will  be  his  care  to  cleave  to  antiquity, 
which  at  this  day  cannot  possibly  be  seduced  by  any 
fraud  of  novelty. 

"To  preach  any  doctrine  therefore  to  Catholic 
Christians  other  than  what  they  have  received  never 
was  lawful,  never  is  lawful,  never  will  be  lawful." 

Thus  according  to  Vincent  the  Christian  obligation 
is  to  keep  that  deposit  of  doctrine  which  is  committed 
to  our  trust.  And  this  obligation  rests  in  general  on 

1  Commonitoriuni)  ii. 


24  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS       [CHAP. 

the  Universal  Church,  and  in  particular  on  the  whole 
body  of  pastors  whose  duty  it  is  to  possess  and  com 
municate  to  others  a  complete  knowledge  of  religion. 
Vincent  considers  the  transmission  of  the  Faith  in  its 
integrity  the  function  not  exclusively  of  the  pastors, 
but  also  of  the  entire  community  of  the  Universal 
Church.  His  famous  often  quoted  words  must  be 
quoted  once  again,  for  it  would  be  impossible  to  express 
his  theory  in  better  terms  than  his  own. 

"Keep  the  Deposit.  What  is  the  Deposit?  That 
which  has  been  entrusted  to  thee,  not  that  which  thou 
hast  thyself  devised  :  a  matter  not  of  wit  but  of  learning  ; 
not  of  private  adoption  but  of  public  tradition  ;  a  matter 
brought  to  thee,  not  put  forth  by  thee,  wherein  thou 
art  bound  to  be  not  an  author  but  a  keeper,  not  a 
teacher  but  a  disciple,  not  a  leader  but  a  follower.  .  .  . 
Let  that  which  formerly  was  believed,  though  im 
perfectly  apprehended,  as  expounded  by  thee  be  clearly 
understood.  Let  posterity  welcome,  understood  through 
thy  exposition,  what  antiquity  venerated  without  under 
standing.  Yet  teach  still  the  same  truths  which  thou 
hast  learned,  so  that  while  thou  speakest  newly,  thou 
speakest  not  what  is  new." 

Nothing  can  be  stronger  than  St  Vincent's  sense 
of  the  substantial  immutability  of  the  Faith.  Nor  is 
there  any  finer  exposition  than  his  of  the  principle 
of  identity.  What  is  perhaps  even  more  remarkable, 
considering  the  period  when  he  wrote,  is  his  recognition 
that  the  principle  of  immutability  requires  to  be  balanced 
by  the  principle  of  progress.  We  have  in  his  pages 
the  earliest  statement  of  the  principles  of  theological 
development,  drawn  with  a  wonderful  insight  into  its 
nature  and  limitations. 

"But  some  one  will  say,  perhaps — Shall  there  then  be  no 
progress  in  the  Christian  Church  ?  Certainly  all  possible 
progress.  .  .  Yet  on  condition  that  it  be  real  progress, 


ii.]  ST   VINCENT  OF   LERINS  25 

not  alteration  of  the  Faith.  For  progress  requires  that 
the  subject  be  enlarged  in  itself,  alteration  that  it 
be  transformed  into  something  else.  The  intelligence, 
then,  the  knowledge,  the  wisdom,  as  well  of  individual 
as  of  all,  as  well  of  one  man  as  of  the  whole  Church, 
ought  in  the  course  of  ages  and  centuries,  to  increase 
and  make  much  and  vigorous  progress ;  but  yet  only  in 
its  own  kind\  i.e.,  in  the  same  doctrine,  in  the  same 
sense,  and  in  the  same  meaning." 

Thus,  according  to  Vincent,  there  may  be  all  possible 
progress  consistent  with  substantial  identity.  And  the 
method  by  which  the  progress  of  the  Church  of  the 
present  day  is  safeguarded  and  controlled  is  perpetual 
reversion  to  the  primitive  type ;  any  substantial 
deviation  from  which  is  a  sign  of  variation  from  the 
truth. 

The  Romanist  opponent  of  Papal  Infallibility  laid 
the  greatest  stress  on  St  Vincent's  principle,  while  the 
Ultramontane  attempted  a  distinction  between  implicit 
and  explicit  truth.  Grant  that  the  Catholic  faith  must 
be  contained  in  the  original  deposit  of  Revelation,  must 
its  recognition  have  been  explicit  from  the  first  ? x  The 
Canon  of  St  Vincent  was  asserted  to  be  true  in  an 
affirmative  sense,  but  not  in  a  negative.  Whatever 
satisfies  the  test  of  universality  was  undoubtedly  part  of 
the  Catholic  faith  ;  but  it  did  not  follow  that  a  doctrine 
which  failed  to  fulfil  this  test  was  therefore  uncatholic. 

This  distinction  carried  no  conviction  to  a  very  large 
minority  in  the  Roman  Church,  partly  because  the 
doctrine  in  question  did  not  satisfy  the  test  of  uni 
versality,  even  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  partly 
because  of  the  doctrine's  intrinsic  character.  They  failed 
to  see  how  a  doctrine  which  explicitly  affirmed  the 
Pope's  independence  of  the  Church's  consent  could  be 

1  Franzelin.  DC  Trad.  p.  295. 


26  THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS      [CHAP. 

a  legitimate  outcome  of,  and  implicitly  contained  within, 
the  principle  of  consent,  which  is  the  negative  of  that 
independence.  Vincent  placed  the  whole  stress  on 
universality  and  consent.  The  Ultramontane  considered 
the  Pope's  utterance  infallible  without  that  universality 
and  consent.  To  the  Roman  opponents  of  the  Vatican 
view  these  two  theories  seemed  mutually  exclusive. 
They  could  not  reconcile  the  Vincentian  Canon  with 
the  Vatican  claim,  nor  reject  St  Vincent's  demand  that 
progress  must  retain  substantial  identity.  They  re 
membered  how  Bishop  Bossuet,  intellectually  the  head 
of  the  seventeenth  -  century  Church  in  France,  had 
claimed  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  the  distinctive 
glory  of  immutability — the  quod  semper  of  St  Vincent 
— as  contrasted  with  the  variations  of  Protestantism.1 

In  the  Vatican  Council  itself  the  Bishops  appealed 
repeatedly  to  the  Canon  of  St  Vincent  as  a  proof  that 
the  Infallibility  doctrine  formed  no  portion  of  the 
Catholic  faith.  Bishop  Maret  had  already  affirmed  in 
the  treatise  which  he  sent  to  all  the  members  of  the 
Council  that  the  principles  of  St  Vincent  can  never 
legitimately  issue  in  a  system  of  absolute  Infallibility 
and  monarchy  of  each  individual  Pope.  Bishop  Hefele 
said  that 

"when  differences  on  matters  of  faith  arose  in  the 
primitive  Church  appeal  was  made  to  the  Apostolic 
Churches,  Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch ;  and  that  only 
was  dogmatically  propounded  to  the  faithful,  which 
was  universally  believed.  None  of  the  ancients  ever 
imagined  that  an  infallible  decision  of  controversies 
could  be  obtained  by  any  shorter  method  at  the  hands 
of  any  single  individual.  On  the  contrary,  Vincent 
said,  let  us  follow  universality,  antiquity,  consent."2 

1  Bossuet,  Premier  Avertisement  aux  Protestants. 

2  Friedrich,  Documenta,  ii.  p.  12 1, 


ii.]  ST  VINCENT  OF   LERINS  27 

Another  Bishop  urged  that  according  to  the  principle 
of  St  Vincent  no  definition  could  be  made  without 
moral  unanimity.  We  have  no  proof,  said  another 
Bishop,  least  of  all  from  the  first  five  centuries.  And 
if  nothing  can  ever  be  defined  except  that  which  has 
been  believed  always  everywhere  and  by  all,  by  what 
right  can  we  defend  the  Papal  Infallibility  ?  None  but 
the  Bishops,  said  another,  can  testify  whether  a  doctrine 
is  held  always  everywhere  and  by  all.  Consequently, 
he,  and  others  with  him,  demurred  to  the  opinion 
that  a  Pope's  utterance  could  be  infallible  without  the 
consent  of  the  episcopate. 

More  emphatic  still  was  the  statement  of  the 
American  Archbishop  Kenrick  : — 

"  The  famous  writer,  Vincent  of  Lerins,  in  his  golden 
treatise  the  Commonitorium^  which  has  been  highly 
esteemed  for  the  last  fourteen  centuries  .  .  .  gives  the 
rule  by  which  a  believer  should  guide  himself  when 
conflicting  opinions  arise  among  the  Bishops :  namely, 
that  nothing  is  to  be  considered  of  Catholic  faith 
which  has  not  been  acknowledged  always  everywhere 
and  by  all.  When  the  Bishops  disagree  Vincent  affirms 
that  antiquity  and  universality  are  to  be  followed. 
He  makes  no  reference  to  the  Roman  Pontiff  whose 
opinion,  according  to  the  Pontifical  Party,  instantly 
determines  all  controversies  of  faith.  This  theory 
assuredly  Vincent  never  heard  of.  And  his  contempor 
aries  entirely  agreed  with  him." 

The  authors  of  Janus  made  an  equally  strong  appeal 
to  St  Vincent  of  Lerins. 

"  If  the  view  of  Roman  Infallibility  had  existed  any 
where  in  the  Church  at  that  time,  it  could  not  have  been 
possibly  passed  over  in  a  book  exclusively  concerned 
with  the  question  of  the  means  for  ascertaining  the 


28        THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS          [CHAP. 

genuine  Christian  doctrine.  But  the  author  keeps  to 
the  three  notes  of  universality,  permanence,  and  consent, 
and  to  the  Ecumenical  Councils."1 

7.  What  was  the  true  relation  of  the  Pope  and  the 
Council  to  each  other?  How  was  it  understood  in 
primitive  times  ?  Did  the  Collective  Episcopate  regard 
itself  as  subordinated,  with  no  independent  judgment 
of  its  own,  to  decisions  of  the  Roman  authority  ?  Or 
was  the  Council  conscious  of  possessing  power  to  accept 
or  refuse  the  papal  utterances  brought  before  it  ? 2 
Bossuet  maintained  that  the  treatment  of  Papal  Letters 
by  the  early  General  Councils  afforded  convincing 
proof  against  their  belief  in  any  theory  of  papal 
inerrancy.  The  famous  letter  of  Leo  to  Flavian  was 
laid  before  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  the  following 
terms : — "  Let  the  Bishops  say  whether  the  teaching  of 
the  318  Fathers  [the  Council  of  Nicea]  or  that  of  the 
1 50  [Constantinople]  agrees  with  the  letter  of  Leo."  Nor 
was  Leo's  letter  accepted  until  its  agreement  with  the 
standards  of  the  former  Ecumenical  Councils  had  been 
ascertained. 

The  very  signatures  of  the  subscribing  Bishops  bear 
this  out — "The  letter  of  Leo  agrees,"  says  one,  "with 
the  Creed  of  the  318  Fathers  and  of  the  150  Fathers, 
and  with  the  decisions  at  Ephesus  under  St  Cyril. 
Wherefore  I  assent  and  willingly  subscribe."3  Thus 
the  act  of  the  Episcopate  at  Chalcedon  was  one  of 
critical  investigation  and  authoritative  judgment,  not  of 
blind  submission  to  an  infallible  voice.  The  theologian, 
Bellarmine,  and  the  historian,  Baronius,  both  strong 
advocates  of  the  papal  authority,  contradict  one  another 
on  this  point.  Baronius  asserts  that  the  Bishops  regarded 
the  letter  of  Leo  as  the  rule  and  guide  in  faith  which 

1  Janus,  p.  89  2  Bossuet,  Defence,  i.  p.  80. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  p.  38. 


ii.j  LEO   TO    FLAVIAN  29 

all  churches  must  accept.  Bellarmine,  however,  per 
plexed  by  the  episcopal  investigation  which  undeniably 
the  letter  endured,  suggested  that  Leo's  letter  to  the 
Council  was  not  intended  as  a  final  definition,  but  as  a 
general  advice  for  the  Bishops'  assistance. 

Bossuet  points  out  that  this  happy  solution  is  refuted 
by  the  simple  fact  that  Leo  wrote  to  Flavian  before  any 
Council  was  even  thought  of.1  It  illustrates  Bellarmine's 
uncritical  ingenuity.  And  since  Baronius  acknowledges 
the  authoritative  character  of  Leo's  letter,  and  Bellarmine 
the  reality  of  its  scrutiny  by  the  Bishops,  the  obvious 
conclusion  is  that  both  the  papal  authority  and  the 
consent  of  the  Universal  Council  are  elements  in 
producing  a  dogma  of  the  Faith.  Accordingly,  the 
Pope's  decision,  taken  by  itself  apart  from  the  consent 
of  the  Church,  is  not  infallible.  Bossuet  claims  that 
Leo's  own  teaching  endorses  this,  for  he  wrote  the 
following  words  :  "  The  things  which  God  had  formerly 
defined  by  our  ministry,  He  confirmed  by  the  irreversible 
consent  of  the  entire  brotherhood." 

To  sum  up  the  procedure  of  the  early  Church  in  a 
question  of  faith  :  Bishop  Flavian  first  declared  what  was 
of  faith  as  the  local  Bishop.  Leo  at  Rome  endorsed  it 
and  gave  his  definition.  After  this  definition  came  the 
examination  of  the  question  in  the  General  Council, 
and  judgment  was  ultimately  given.  After  the  definition 
had  been  approved  by  the  judgment  of  the  Bishops 
no  further  room  for  doubt  or  dispute  remained.2 

The  impression  made  upon  a  Roman  writer  by  Roman 
research  for  proof  of  Infallibility  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  significant 
passage : 

^ "  To  sum  up.     The  defenders  of  the  dogma  of  Infalli 
bility  discover  valuable  hints  in  history.     But  they  also 

1  Bossuet,  Defence,  i.  p.  81.  2  Ibid.  ii.  p.  41. 


30        THE   AGE   OF  THE   FATHERS   [CHAP.  11. 

encounter  difficulties.  After  systematising  against  the 
Gallican  School  the  grounds  of  their  belief,  they 
endeavoured  to  meet  the  difficulties  which  required 
to  be  solved.  These  difficulties  came  from  many 
sources.  They  came  from  Councils  which  on  various 
occasions  constituted  themselves  judges  of  teaching 
sent  from  Rome.  They  came  from  certain  teachers 
who  opposed  other  works  to  the  doctrinal  decisions 
of  Popes.  But  they  came,  above  all,  from  Popes  them 
selves  who  were  not  always  at  the  level  required  of 
their  mission,  and  at  times  allowed  themselves  to  be 
ensnared  with  error."1 

Primitive  evidence  for  Papal  Infallibility  is  then 
admitted  by  some  Roman  writers  to  be  meagre  and 
disappointing.2  A  curious  instance  of  this  is  found  in 
the  theologian,  Melchior  Cano.  He  says  that  the  quota 
tions  given  by  St  Thomas  from  St  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
afford  a  much  clearer  evidence  for  this  doctrine  than  that 
in  any  other  patristic  writer.  But  when  he  sought  for  the 
original  passages  they  were  not  to  be  found.  "This 
is  the  work  of  the  heretics,"  he  exclaims  indignantly. 
"  They  have  mutilated  the  writings,  and  erased  everything 
that  concerned  pontifical  authority."  So  Melchior  Cano. 
To-day,  however,  it  is  universally  acknowledged  that 
these  passages  were  interpolations  by  which  St  Thomas 
Aquinas  was  deceived.  Thus  Melchior  Cano's  clearest 
evidence  is  nothing  else  than  a  simple  forgery. 

1  Turmel,  Hist.  Thtol.  Positive ',  p.  309. 

2  Melchior  Cano,  Op.  lib.  v.  cap.  v. 


CHAPTER   III 
THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS 

THE  case  of  Pope  Honorius  naturally  occupied  the 
attention  of  Roman  Catholics  more  than  any  other 
instance  of  papal  pronouncements,  because  it  presented 
peculiar  difficulties  to  the  advocates  of  Infallibility.  The 
literature  created  by  this  single  case  within  the  Roman 
Communion  is  enormous.  We  shall  but  represent  its 
actual  historical  position  in  the  development  of  the 
subject,  if  we  treat  it  at  considerable  and  even  dispro 
portionate  length.  For  in  reality  it  is  no  solitary 
incident.  It  reaches  out  into  the  Universal  Councils 
of  the  Church.  It  shows  the  early  conception  of  the 
relation  between  Council  and  Pope ;  what  the  Collective 
Episcopate  thought  of  the  nature  of  a  papal  definition 
of  faith ;  what  subsequent  Popes  thought  of  a  pre 
decessor's  pronouncement. 

To  understand  it  we  must  revert  to  the  conditions  of 
Christian  thought  when  the  first  four  General  Councils 
were  completed.  The  Incarnation  was  then  interpreted 
to  involve  two  natures  united  in  one  Person.  But  the 
inferences  which  this  statement  required  were  not  yet 
clearly  thought  out.  The  difficulty  of  the  period  was 
to  allow  full  scope  to  the  human  nature  in  Christ.  If 
there  was  one  Person  in  Christ,  then  there  must  be 
one  will,  and  that  will  manifestly  divine.  Accordingly 
it  was  supposed  that  His  human  nature  had  no  human 


32  THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS          [CHAP. 

will.  The  relation  of  the  divine  to  the  human  in  Christ 
was  thought  to  resemble  that  of  the  soul  to  the  body, 
in  such  a  way  that  the  human  nature  was  but  a  will-less 
passive  instrument  under  the  absolute  control  of  the 
will  which  was  divine. 

This  is  the  Monothelite  heresy.  It  is  a  heresy  of  a 
disastrous  kind,  for  it  virtually  denies  the  reality  of 
the  Incarnation.  If  the  Son  of  God  took  a  will-less 
human  nature,  then  He  did  not  take  our  human  nature 
at  all.  For  the  will  is  essential  to  the  perfection  of 
our  nature. 

Now  the  Monothelite  heresy  was  widely  prevalent  in 
the  East :  the  real  leader  and  chief  promoter  being 
Sergius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Acting  under  his 
influence,  Cyrus,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  published  in 
633  a  document  asserting  the  existence  of  only  one  will 
in  Christ.  This  was  earnestly  opposed  by  Sophronius, 
afterwards  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  who  entreated  Cyrus 
to  cancel  the  objectionable  statement,  and  visited  Sergius 
with  a  view  to  enlist  his  support.  This  he  naturally 
failed  to  obtain.  But  Sergius,  with  more  subtlety  than 
frankness,  being  in  fact  alarmed  at  the  sensation  produced 
by  the  heresy  in  Catholic  minds,  proposed  as  a  com 
promise  that  both  the  assertion  of  one  energy  in  Christ, 
and  the  counter  -  assertion  of  two  energies  should  be 
abandoned.  Sophronius  consented.  Sergius  then  wrote 
his  famous  diplomatic  letter  to  Honorius  of  Rome, 
giving  his  own  version  of  the  controversy,  explaining 
that  in  the  interests  of  peace  it  was  desirable  that 
both  expressions  should  be  discouraged.  To  speak  of 
"one  energy"  in  Christ  seemed  strange  to  many,  and 
offended  them  because  it  seemed  to  deny  the  duality 
of  nature  in  our  Lord ;  while  the  expression  "  two 
energies  "  offended  others,  because  it  would  follow  that 
there  were  two  contradictory  wills  in  Christ.  Sergius 


in.]      THE   SIXTH   GENERAL   COUNCIL      33 

then  explained  his  theory  by  the  illustration  that  as 
the  body  is  controlled  by  the  soul,  so  is  the  human 
nature  in  Christ  controlled  by  His  Divine  Will  —  an 
illustration  which  certainly  ought  to  have  opened 
Honorius's  eyes,  even  if  the  proposal  to  abandon  the 
orthodox  expression,  "two  energies,"  did  not  already 
alarm  him.  Now  this  letter  of  Sergius  was  condemned 
by  the  Sixth  General  Council.  But  this  same  letter 
Honorius  approved.  / 

Honorius  replied  that  he  learns  from  Sergius's  letter 
that  new  controversies  have  been  stirred  up  by  a  certain 
Sophronius,  a  monk,  now  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  against 
"  our  brother,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  who  taught  converts 
from  heresy  the  doctrine  of  one  energy  in  Christ."  He  is 
glad  to  hear  that  this  expression,  "  one  energy,"  has  been 
abandoned,  because  it  "  might  give  offence  to  the  simple." 
Honorius,  however,  asserts  for  himself  "  we  confess  one 
will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  explains  that 
there  was  no  diverse  or  conflicting  will  in  the  human 
nature  of  Christ ;  no  conflict  that  is  of  the  flesh  against 
the  spirit.  He  says  that  we  may  not  erect  into  dogmas 
of  the  Church  the  statements  that  in  Christ  there  is  one 
energy  or  two,  since  neither  the  New  Testament  nor 
the  Councils  have  so  taught.  He  says,  further,  that  he 
desires  to  reject  everything  which  as  a  novelty  of 
expression  might  cause  uneasiness  in  the  Church.  He 
is  quite  aware  that  the  expression  "  two  energies  "  might 
be  considered  Nestorian,  and  "  one  energy  "  Eutychian. 
Accordingly,  he  "  exhorts  "  Sergius  to  avoid  both  expres 
sions  and  to  keep  to  the  already  sanctioned  phrases. 

This  letter  of  Honorius  was  utilised  in  the  East  to 
justify  the  Monothelite  heresy  —  the  existence  of  one 
will  in  Christ.  Honorius  died  shortly  after  its  publica 
tion  (638).  His  successor,  John  IV.,  defended  Honorius's 
orthodoxy  on  the  ground  that,  since  Sergius's  enquiry 

c 


34  THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS          [CHAP. 

was  concerned  only  with  our  Lord's  humanity,  the  reply 
was  similarly  restricted  to  the  same.  A  later  successor, 
Martin  I.,  held  a  Synod  at  the  Lateran  in  649,  in  which 
the  two  Patriarchs,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria  and  Sergius  of 
Constantinople,  were  both  condemned  as  Monothelites ; 
and  in  which,  without  any  allusion  to  Honorius,  it 
was  affirmed  that  the  coexistence  of  two  wills  in 
Christ  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  co-existence 
of  the  two  natures,  human  and  divine.  In  680  was  held 
the  Sixth  General  Council  with  a  view  to  reconcile  and 
reunite  the  East  with  the  West.  To  this  Council  Pope 
Agatho  sent  a  letter  reaffirming  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
two  natural  wills  and  operations,  and  declaring  that 
his  Church  had,  by  the  grace  of  God,  never  erred  from 
the  Apostolic  Tradition  nor  submitted  to  heretical 
innovations.  This  letter  the  Council  received  and 
adopted ;  and  proceeded  to  condemn  as  heretical  the 
writings  of  his  predecessor,  Honorius,  upon  whom  they 
gave  judgment  as  well  as  upon  the  two  Patriarchs 
of  Alexandria  and  Constantinople.  After  reading  the 
letter  of  Sergius  to  Pope  Honorius  and  that  of 
Honorius  to  Sergius,  the  Council  pronounced  judgment 
in  the  following  terms : — 

"  We  find  that  these  documents  are  quite  foreign  to  the 
Apostolic  dogmas,  also  to  the  declarations  of  the  holy 
Councils,  and  all  the  Fathers  of  repute;  therefore  we 
entirely  reject  them,  and  execrate  them  as  hurtful  to 
the  soul.  But  the  names  of  these  men  must  also  be 
thrust  forth  from  the  Church,  namely,  that  of  Sergius, 
who  first  wrote  on  this  impious  doctrine ;  further,  that 
of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  etc.  .  .  .  We  anathematise  them 
all.  And  along  with  them,  it  is  our  unanimous  decree  that 
there  shall  be  expelled  from  the  Church  and  anathema 
tised  Honorius,  formerly  Pope  of  Old  Rome,  because  we 
found  in  his  letter  to  Sergius  that  in  all  respects  he 
followed  his  view  and  confirmed  his  impious  doctrines." 


in.]  THE   LIBER  D I  URN  US  35 

This  conclusion  was  followed  up  by  burning  the 
heretical  letters,  including  that  of  Pope  Honorius.  It 
is  significant  that  when  the  Council  were  about  to 
proceed  to  pronounce  the  Anathemas,  George,  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  was  anxious  to  secure  the  omission 
of  his  predecessors'  name,  but  the  majority  overruled 
him.  So  the  sentence  was  uttered,  "  Anathema  to  the 
heretic  Sergius,  to  the  heretic  Cyrus,  to  the  heretic 
Honorius." 

The  announcement  of  these  decisions  was  made  not 
to  Pope  Agatho,  for  he  had  died  ;  but  to  his  successor, 
Leo  II.  Leo  accepted  the  decisions  of  Constantinople. 
He  has  carefully  examined  the  Acts  of  the  Council 
and  found  them  in  harmony  with  the  declarations  of 
faith  of  his  predecessor,  Agatho,  and  of  the  Synod 
of  the  Lateran.  He  anathematised  all  these  heretics, 
including  his  predecessor,  Honorius,  "  who  so  far 
from  aiding  the  Apostolic  See  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostolic  Tradition,  attempted  to  subvert  the  faith  by 
a  profane  betrayal." 

This  condemnation  of  Honorius  was  reiterated  by 
two  more  Ecumenical  Councils.  It  recurs  in  the  papal 
Profession  of  Faith  uttered  by  each  Pope  on  his  accession 
down  to  the  eleventh  century.  This  formula  is  contained 
in  the  Liber  Diurnus,  a  volume  which  has  had  a 
remarkable  history.  The  Liber  Diurnus  is  a  collection 
of  ancient  documents  relating  to  the  Papal  Office,  forms 
of  faith,  and  other  formulas,  which  were  in  use  in  the 
Roman  Church  probably  from  the  sixth  to  the  eleventh 
centuries.  The  collection  was  made  in  Rome  itself. 
At  what  precise  date  the  formulas  therein  contained 
ceased  to  be  in  use  the  learned  appear  unable  to 
say. 

The  Liber  Diurnus  disappeared  from  sight  and  almost 
from  memory.  Its  very  existence  seemed  uncertain. 


36  THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS          [CHAP. 

In  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  Holstein, 
afterwards  librarian  of  the  Vatican,  found  the  MS.  at 
Rome.1  Another  MS.  was  found  in  the  Jesuit  College 
of  Clermont  in  Paris.  Holstein  prepared  an  edition 
for  the  press.  It  should  have  seen  the  light  in  i65O.2 
Nothing  was  wanting  but  approval  of  the  censors. 
The  approval  was,  however,  refused,  and  the  copies  were 
consigned  to  imprisonment  in  the  Vatican.  The  reason 
for  this  suppression  is  given  by  the  liturgical  writer, 
Cardinal  Bona:3 — 

"  Since  in  the  Profession  of  Faith  by  the  Pope  elect, 
P.  Honorius  is  condemned  as  having  given  encourage 
ment  to  the  depraved  assertions  of  heretics  —  if  these 
words  actually  occur  in  the  original  and  there  is  no 
obvious  means  of  remedying  such  a  wound  —  it  is 
better  that  the  work  should  not  be  published — prcestat 
non  divulgari  opus'' 4 

Such  was  Cardinal  Bona's  opinion  and  advice. 

Another  learned  writer,  P.  Sirmond,  in  a  letter  to 
Holstein,  expressed  himself  with  still  more  remarkable 
frankness : — 

"  It  appears  to  me  not  so  astonishing,"  said  Sirmond, 
"  that  the  Greek  Monothelites  should  attempt  to  identify 
Honorius  with  their  error,  as  it  seems  extraordinary 
that  the  Romans  themselves,  in  the  newly  elected  Pope's 
Profession  of  Faith,  should  have  branded  the  name  of 
Honorius  together  with  the  authors  of  heretical  ideas, 
such  as  Sergius,  etc.,  for  having  given  encouragement 
to  the  depraved  assertions  of  heretics.  And  yet  such 
are  the  terms  of  that  Profession  of  Faith,  as  I  found  it 
among  the  ancient  formulas  of  the  Roman  Church. 
And  this  is  the  only  reason  which  deterred  me  from 

1  Rostere,  xxxix.  2  Ibid,  xviii. 

8  Ibid,  cxiii.  4  Ibid,  cxiii. 


in.]  ROMAN  THEORIES  IN  EXPLANATION  37 

producing  an  edition  of  it,  notwithstanding  my  promise 
to  Cardinal  S."1 

The  suppression  of  Holstein's  edition  created  a 
sensation  among  the  learned  men  of  France.  "The 
Liber  Diurnus"  wrote  Launoy,  "has  been  printed  in 
Rome  several  years,  and  is  detained  by  the  masters 
of  the  Papal  Court  and  the  Inquisitors.  These  men 
\cannot  bear  the  light  of  ancient  truth."2  However,  in 
the  year  1680,  the  Jesuit  writer,  Gamier,  published  an 
edition  of  the  work.  Whatever  his  motive  may  have 
been  and  it  is  still  disputed,  he  was  summoned  to 
Rome  to  give  an  explanation,  and  died  on  the  way.3 
However,  the  mischief  was  out,  and  from  that  time 
authorised  publication  became  easy.  The  great  scholar, 
Mabillon,  printed  the  work  without  let  or  hindrance,  and 
the  comparative  indifference  of  the  world  exemplified 

the  maxim  that   an   institution   which  has  survived  a 
/. 

fact  will  also  survive  its  publication. 

Such,  then,  appear  to  be  the  historic  facts,  stated  as 
objectively  as  we  can  state  them. 

We  now  proceed  to  give  the  various  Roman  explana 
tions.  "  It  is,"  says  Hefele,4  the  learned  historian  of  the 
Councils,  "  in  the  highest  degree  startling,  even  scarcely 
credible,  that  an  Ecumenical  Council  should  punish 
with  anathemas  a  Pope  as  a  heretic."  Certainly  from 
an  Ultramontane  standpoint  it  must  be  so.  And  this 
perplexity  has  led  to  a  curious  and  instructive  variety 
of  conflicting  solutions  from  the  days  of  Cardinal 
Bellarmine  down  to  the  present  time. 

I.  First  explanation  :  It  was  boldly  asserted  in  the 
seventeenth  century  that  Pope  Honorius  was  not  con 
demned  at  all.  The  historian,  Baronius,  made  himself 

1  Rosiere,  cxiv.  2  Ibid.  xlix.  Ivii.  3  Ibid.  Ix.  Ixi. 

4  History  of  the  Councils,  i.  p.  181.  (Engl.  trans.). 


38  THE  CASE    OF  HONORIUS          [CHAP. 

responsible  for  this  view,  and  Bellarmine  followed  him. 
No  doubt  the  documents  as  we  possess  them  affirm  the 
contrary ;  but  then  they  must  have  been  interpolated 
and  falsified.  The  reasons  given  for  this  procedure  are 
that  the  Council  of  the  Lateran  over  which  Pope  Martin 
presided  condemned  the  Monothelites,  but  did  not 
mention  Honorius.  Also  that  the  Ecumenical  Council 
of  Constantinople  could  not  possibly  have  condemned 
Honorius  as  a  heretic;  for  that  would  make  them 
contradict  Pope  Agatho's  letter,  to  the  effect  that  the 
Apostolic  Church  had  never  strayed  from  the  path  of  the 
Apostolic  Tradition,  nor  yielded  to  the  perversions  of 
heretical  novelties.  Either,  therefore,  the  Council's  words 
are  falsified,  or  the  letter  of  Agatho  is  falsified,  or  the 
Council  and  Agatho  disagree.  But  no  one  asserts  this 
last,  and  no  one  has  ever  suggested  the  second,  there 
fore  the  first  alternative  is  the  one  to  be  maintained. 
Bellarmine  shows  grounds  to  mistrust  those  fraudulent 
Greeks.  He  gives  numerous  instances  of  forgery. 
Baronius  conjectures  that  a  heretical  Bishop,  finding 
his  own  name  in  the  Council's  list  of  the  condemned, 
quietly  erased  it  and  substituted  that  of  Pope  Honorius. 

Bossuet1  thinks  the  mere  recital  of  these  conjectures 
sufficient  refutation,  and  deplores  that  so  learned  a  man 
should  be  dishonoured  by  these  fictions.  Sceptical 
criticism  so  utterly  unfounded  would,  if  universally 
applied,  destroy  the  foundation  of  all  historic  certainty. 

A  recent  Roman  writer  (1906)  says  that  the  theory  of 
Bellarmine  and  Baronius  offers  valuable  advantage,  that 
is  to  the  Ultramontane,  but  is  attended  by  enormous 
difficulties.2  For,  if  the  fraudulent  Greeks  interpolated 
the  Acts  of  the  Council,  who  interpolated  the  letter  of 
Leo  II.  in  which  he  accepts  its  conclusion  and  condemns 

1   Works,  V.  xvii.  p.  67. 

8  Turmel,  Hist.  Thtol.  Positive,  p.  315. 


HI.]  ROMAN  THEORIES  IN  EXPLANATION  39 

Honorius  by  name  ?  Accordingly  the  solution  dear  to 
Bellarmine  and  Baronius  has  been  abandoned  by  the 
strongest  advocates  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

2.  A  second  explanation  admitted  that  Honorius  was 
condemned,  but  asserted  that  he  was  only  condemned  in 
his  private  capacity,  as  an  individual  theologian,  and  not 
as  Pope. 

One  obvious  advantage  of  this  theory  was  that  at  any 
rate  it  did  no  violence  to  historic  documents.  It 
encouraged  no  universal  scepticism  as  to  sources. 
Bellarmine  himself  suggested  it  as  an  alternative  to 
those  who  could  not  be  satisfied  with  discrediting  whole 
sale  on  suspicion  the  long  series  of  documents.  But 
Bellarmine  did  not  like  the  theory ;  for  he  held  that 
although  the  opinion  that  a  Pope  can  err  as  a  private 
teacher  is  probable,  yet  the  opposite  opinion  was  more 
probable  still.  However,  for  those  whom  it  might  assist, 
there  it  was.  All  that  the  Council  meant  to  say  was 
that  Honorius  by  his  private  letters  promoted  heresy. 

Private  letters  !  echoes  Bossuet 1  scornfully.  When, 
then,  is  a  decision  given,  ex  cathedra,  unless  when 
the  successor  of  St  Peter,  being  consulted  by  the  entire 
East,  should  suppress  a  deadly  error  and  strengthen  his 
brethren  ?  Or  did  he  prefer  to  be  deceived,  when,  being 
so  interrogated,  he  did  not  reply  under  these  conditions 
in  which  he  knew  that  he  could  not  be  deceived  ? 

A  recent  Roman  writer2  assures  us  that  the  opinion 
that  the  letter  of  Honorius  was  compiled  as  a  private 
theologian  has  never  been  enthusiastically  received, 
never  achieved  a  real  success.  Its  partisans  have  been 
few  in  number  and  authority. 

"To  allow  that  a  Pope  had  been  solemnly  charged 
with  heresy  even  as  a  private  doctor  was  too  much  for 

1  Bossuet,  t.  xxi.  p.  76.          2  Tunnel,  Hist.  Thtol.  Positiv*,  p.  76. 


40  THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS          [CHAP. 

the  infallibilists.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Gallicans 
could  not  forget  Bossuet's  retort.  '  When  can  a  Pope 
have  cause  to  speak  ex  cathedra  if  not  when  consulted 
by  the  entire  East ? '" l 

3.  A  third  explanation  of  the  case  of  Honorius  is 
that  he  was  condemned  for  heresy,  but  mistakenly ; 
the  Council  being  in  error  on  a  question  of  fact. 
Bellarmine  proposes  this  as  an  alternative  solution  to 
those  who  cannot  be  induced  to  believe  that  the  Decrees 
of  the  Sixth  General  Council  have  been  interpolated 
and  corrupted.  It  may  be  said  that  Honorius  was 
actually  condemned  by  the  Council  as  a  heretic,  but 
that  they  acted  on  false  information.  If  infallible  in 
doctrine,  they  were  not  infallible  in  questions  of  fact. 
If  the  reader  objects,  and  interposes  an  enquiry  whether 
Bellarmine  understands  Honorius's  letter  better  than 
an  Ecumenical  Council  understood  him,  the  ready  reply 
is  that  Pope  Agatho  said  that  his  See  had  never 
strayed.  Pope  Agatho  understood  the  letter  of  Honorius 
better  than  the  Greeks  assembled  in  the  Council.  If 
you  ask  why,  then,  didn't  the  legates  of  Agatho  resist 
the  condemnation,  Bellarmine  answers  that  this  was 
diplomatic.  They  acquiesced  to  avert  a  greater  evil ; 
namely,  continuance  of  false  doctrine.  Thus,  according 
to  Bellarmine,  to  secure  the  condemnation  of  the  Mono- 
thelite  heresy,  the  legates  sanctioned  the  condemnation 
of  a  Pope  for  heresy — apparently  on  the  principle  of 
two  evils  prefer  the  less — with  consequences,  however, 
which  Bellarmine  does  not  seem  to  have  thought  out. 
If  the  reader  still  persists,  in  his  incredulous  temper,  to 
ask,  Why,  then,  did  Pope  Leo  in  his  letter  after  the 
Council  also  condemn  Honorius?  it  is  suggested  that 

1  Turme),  Hist.  Thtol.  Positive,  p.  317. 


in.]  ROMAN  THEORIES  IN  EXPLANATION  41 

you  can  say  that  Leo  followed  the  legates  of  Agatho ; 
he  preferred  to  let  sleeping  dogs  lie.  But  we  are  not 
bound,  says  Bellarmine,  to  follow  Leo.  We  may  follow 
Agatho.  For  you  see  that  whether  Honorius  erred 
is,  after  all,  a  question  of  fact :  and  in  questions  of 
fact  even  Popes  may  differ. 

This  theory  appeared  congenial  to  some  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  But  then  it  received  an  unexpected 
application,  being  utilised  by  the  Jansenists  to  justify 
their  treatment  of  papal  decisions  with  respectful 
incredulity.  Whether  certain  doctrines  were  or  were 
not  contained  within  the  pages  of  Jansenius's  great  book 
was  not  a  question  of  faith  but  of  fact.  Consequently 
it  was  enough  to  adopt  towards  any  papal  assertions 
on  the  subject  an  attitude  of  external  deference  while 
maintaining  unchanged  one's  inward  convictions. 

This  application  opened  the  eyes  of  papal  theologians 
to  the  dangerous  character  of  the  theory.  It  became, 
says  Turmel,1  almost  invariably  abandoned  among 
defenders  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

But,  after  all.  was  the  Universal  Council  mistaken 
in  the  intepretation  it  placed  upon  the  theological 
contents  of  Honorius's  letter?  Upon  this  question 
Roman  writers  have  been  sharply  divided.  This  was 
the  defence  set  up  for  him  by  his  immediate  successor, 
but  obviously  not  accepted  by  the  long  line  of  his 
successors  who  condemned  him  ;  nor  by  the  Ecumenical 
Council  which  pronounced  its  judgment  upon  him ; 
nor  by  the  two  other  Ecumenical  Councils  which 
followed. 

Honorius's  successor,  Agatho,  indeed  asserted  that 
his  See  had  never  deflected  from  the  way  of  truth,  and 
that  the  Roman  Pontiffs  had  obeyed  the  injunction  laid 
upon  Peter  to  strengthen  his  brethren.  This  language 

1  Turmel,  Hist.  Thtol.  Positive,  p.  32. 


42  THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS  [CHAP. 

was  accepted  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Sixth  Council. 
But  what  they  understood  by  it,  said  Bossuet,  can 
be  readily  gathered  from  the  following  single  fact : 
they  approved  the  teaching  of  Agatho,  but  they 
condemned  the  teaching  of  Honorius.  Manifestly  they 
did  not  endorse  the  theory  that  no  Roman  Pontiff 
had  ever  deflected  from  the  faith,  or  that  his  decisions 
deserved  the  unquestioning  submission  of  Christendom. 
All  that  the  Council  could  have  assented  to  was  that 
as  a  general  fact  the  truth  was  held  in  Rome ;  without 
pronouncing  any  opinion  as  to  the  invariable  fidelity 
of  individual  Popes.  If  Agatho  meant  more  than 
this,  he  was,  said  Bossuet,  mistaken  in  a  question  of 
fact.  His  statement  must  be  set  beside  that  of  Leo  II., 
who  affirmed  that  Honorius,  "instead  of  suppressing 
the  flame  of  heretical  views  by  his  apostolic  authority, 
encouraged  it  by  his  neglect." 

The  immediate  successors  of  Honorius  passed  over 
his  error  and  spared  his  memory.  This  was  natural. 
For  his  pontificate  was  exemplary  in  other  respects ; 
he  died  in  the  peace  of  the  Church ;  he  had  not  acted 
with  evil  intentions ;  nor  was  he  pertinacious  in  defence 
of  his  error ;  nor  did  anything  in  the  condition  of  the 
Western  Church  require  a  public  refutation  of  his  error. 
But  in  the  East  it  was  otherwise.  The  Monothelites 
publicly  supported  themselves  under  his  authority. 
Accordingly,  the  Sixth  Council  felt  compelled  to  con 
demn  Honorius  also,  as  having  in  all  things  followed  the 
lines  of  Sergius  and  promoted  his  dangerous  teaching. 
Thus  the  Council's  reply  to  Agatho's  letter  on  the 
invariability  of  his  See  was  an  announcement  that 
they  had  condemned  his  predecessor. 

Bellarmine  boldly  asserts  that  in  any  case  Honorius's 
letters  contain  no  heresy.  He  only  forbade  the  use  of 
the  terms, <4  one  will,"  or  "  two  wills  "  in  Christ,  a  course 


in.]  HEFELE'S   CRITICISMS  43 

which,  according  to  the  same  writer,  only  shows  his 
prudence.  The  critical  words,  "Wherefore  we  confess 
one  will  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  are,  as  his  explana 
tion  shows,  a  reference  exclusively  to  Christ's  human 
nature.  What  he  meant  was  that  in  Christ  as  man 
there  were  not  two  conflicting  wills  of  the  flesh  and 
the  spirit. 

Bossuet  replied  that  probably  Honorius  was  not 
heretical  in  his  private  convictions.  But  he  very  badly 
instructed  the  Patriarchs  who  consulted  him  ;  and  he 
secured  peace  at  the  price  of  silence  as  to  the  Orthodox 
Faith.  He  spoke  disparagingly  of  the  teaching  of 
Sophronius,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  who  maintained 
the  Catholic  Truth  upon  the  subject,  and  favourably 
of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  who  propagated  the  false 
doctrine.  His  language  suggests  heretical  explana 
tion.  It  was  most  unsuited  to  the  special  occasion 
and  the  requirements  of  the  Church.  It  failed  to 
give  any  definite  guidance  on  the  doctrine  in  question ; 
and,  by  its  vague  and  general  terms,  promoted  the 
very  error  which  ought  to  have  been  suppressed. 

Perhaps  the  ablest  Roman  criticism  on  the  contents 
of  Honorius's  letter  is  that  of  the  historian  Hefele.  It 
should  be  read  in  the  form  in  which  he  published  it 
prior  to  the  alterations  which  the  Vatican  Council 
forced  upon  his  historical  expositions.  "  Honorius," 
says  Hefele,1  "  did  not  grasp  the  matter  aright  at  the 
very  beginning."  He  argued  briefly  but  inappropriately 
that  where  there  is  one  Person  there  is  only  one  Worker 
and  therefore  only  one  Will.  He  said  that  in  our 
ordinary  corrupted  nature  there  are  certainly  two 
wills,  that  of  the  flesh  and  that  of  the  spirit,  but  that 
the  former  is  only  a  consequence  of  the  Fall,  and 
therefore  could  not  exist  in  Christ.  "  So  far  Honorius 

1  History  of  the  Councils,  p.  32. 


44  THE  CASE  OF  HONORIUS  [CHAP. 

was  quite  on  the  right  way  ;  but  he  did  not  accurately 
draw  the  inferences."  He  ought  now  to  have  said: 
Hence  it  follows  that  in  Christ,  since  He  is  God  and 
man,  there  exists,  together  with  His  Divine  Will,  only 
the  incorrupt  human  will.  But  Honorius  kept  the 
human  will  entirely  out  of  account.  He  thought  that 
to  maintain  the  co-existence  of  two  distinct  wills  in 
Christ  would  compel  the  admission  of  two  contradictory 
wills.  He  ought  to  have  answered  Sergius,  You  are 
quite  right  in  saying  we  must  not  ascribe  two  contrary 
wills  to  Christ ;  but,  nevertheless,  there  are  in  Christ 
two  wills,  the  divine  and  the  incorrupt  human.1  Instead 
of  which  Honorius  asserted :  "  We  confess  one  will  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Hefele,  even  after  the  Vatican 
decision,  felt  constrained  to  describe  this  statement  as 
"the  unhappy  sentence  which,  literally  taken,  is  quite 
Monothelite." 2 

Hefele  also  was  unable  to  accept  the  excuse  for  this 
language,  proposed  by  Honorius's  immediate  successor, 
to  the  effect  that,  being  consulted  only  on  the  man 
hood  of  Christ,  there  was  no  occasion  to  speak  of 
anything  else  than  the  human  will.  This  interpretation 
Hefele  characterises  as  suavior  quam  verier.  For  it 
is  simply  untrue  that  he  was  consulted  only  on  the 
contents  of  Christ's  human  will.  Sergius  did  not  ask 
whether  we  ought  to  acknowledge  in  Christ  a  will 
of  the  flesh  and  a  will  of  the  spirit.  He  asked  nothing 
at  all  on  this  subject,  but  asserted  that  in  Christ  there 
can  be  only  one  will.  Hefele's  conclusion  accordingly 
was  that  Honorius  encouraged  heresy  by  enjoining 
silence  on  the  orthodox  expression,  "  two  energies,"  and 
still  more  by  the  unhappy  expression,  "  We  confess  one 
will  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  3 

But  even  then,  Hefele  is  constrained  by  his  historic 

1  History  of  the  Councils,  p.  36.  2  Ibid.  p.  54.  3  Ibid.  p.  58. 


in.]  THE    PREVALENT  VIEW  45 

insight  to  recognise  that  the  Sixth  Ecumenical  Council 
thought  much  more  seriously  of  Honorius's  errors  than 
Hefele  himself  does;  especially  as  controlled  by  the 
Vatican  Council.  After  recalling  the  association  of 
Honorius  with  Sergius  and  others,  and  the  exact 
language  of  the  condemnation,  Hefele  says : — 

"From  all  this  it  cannot  be  doubtful  in  what  sense 
Pope  Honorius  was  anathematised  by  the  Sixth  Ecu 
menical  Council,  and  it  is  equally  beyond  doubt  that 
the  Council  judged  much  more  severely  respecting 
him  than  we  have  done."  l 

Into  the  significance  of  this  difference  of  judgment 
Hefele  does  not  enter.  But  apart  from  all  enquiry 
whether  the  estimate  of  an  Ecumenical  Council  outweighs 
that  of  an  individual  theologian,  apart  from  the  question 
of  the  accuracy  of  their  decision,  there  lie  the  theological 
principles  which  this  severity  of  judgment  on  a  papal 
utterance  involved.  Such  condemnation  obviously 
assumes  a  certain  conception  of  the  value  and  authority 
of  papal  decisions.  Hefele  said  that  "  It  is  in  the 
highest  degree  startling,  even  scarcely  credible,  that  an 
Ecumenical  Council  should  punish  with  anathema  a 
Pope  as  a  heretic."  And  on  Ultramontane  presupposi 
tions  so  it  is.  Does  not  this,  together  with  the  evident 
difficulty  which  a  modern  Romanist  experiences  in 
bringing  himself  to  accept  this  Ecumenical  decision, 
betray  a  singular  deviation  from  the  principles  of  an 
earlier  age  ?  That  which  seems  to-day  "  in  the  highest 
degree  startling,  even  scarcely  credible,"  did  it  appear 
in  that  light  to  the  age  in  which  it  was  decreed  ?  Did 
the  startled  representatives  of  the  Apostles  shrink  away 
in  silent  amazement  at  their  own  audacity,  abashed 

1  History  of  tht  Councils,  p.  184. 


46  THE  CASE  OF  HONOROUS        [CHAP. 

before  the  horror  of  the  Catholic  world?  Or  did  not 
the  Pope  of  the  period  assent  to  their  decrees  as  being 
in  no  way  conflicting  with  Catholic  principles? 

4.  A  fourth  explanation  of  the  fact  has  been  proposed. 
It  is  acknowledged  that  Honorius  was  condemned,  but 
asserted  that  he  was  not  charged  with  heresy,  but 
only  with  imprudence. 

This  was  the  theory  of  Father  Gamier,  the  Jesuit, 
editor  of  the  Liber  Diurnus.  An  admirable  summary 
of  his  opinions  is  given  by  Turmel  in  his  Histoire  de 
la  Thtologie  Positive)- 

Gamier  read  the  Council's  sentence  that  Honorius 
"followed  the  false  doctrines  of  the  heretics."  This 
means,  says  Gamier,  that  he  failed  in  courage  to  oppose 
them.  If  Honorius  was  declared  excommunicated  and 
anathematised,  this  only  meant  that  he  had  made  himself 
congenial  to  heretics  by  imposing  silence  on  certain 
expressions,  not  that  he  had  sanctioned  heretical  ideas. 
If  the  Council  ordered  his  letters  to  be  burnt,  as  tending 
to  the  same  impiety  as  those  of  Sergius,  this  did  not 
mean  that  they  were  necessarily  heretical.  A  writing 
may  tend  to  impiety  by  its  omissions  just  as  much 
as  by  its  positive  assertions.  Gamier  then  faced  the 
great  difficulty  that  the  Council  proclaimed  Anathema 
to  Sergius  and  to  Honorius.  .  .  .  Anathema  to  all 
heretics.  Anathema  to  all  who  have  taught  or  teach 
one  will  and  one  energy  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Surely,  this  time,  Honorius  is  included  among  the 
heretics.  Gamier  is  quite  equal  to  the  occasion. 
Granted  that  the  Pope  was  anathematised  simul 
taneously  with  the  Monothelite,  yet  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  motive  of  his  condemnation  was  the  same. 
Garnier,  therefore,  says  Turmel,  closed  the  Acts  of  the 
Sixth  Ecumenical  Council  with  the  conviction  that 

1  Page  317. 


HI.]  THE   PREVALENT  VIEW  47 

Honorius    was    nowhere  condemned    for    heresy,  but 
simply  for  his  imprudence. 

The  theory  of  Gamier,  says  Turmel,  has  met  with 
an  approval  in  the  theological  world,  which  has  only 
increased  with  the  passage  of  time.  It  became  the 
favourite  defence  of  Honorius  down  to  the  eve  of 
the  Council  of  the  Vatican. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  SCHOLASTIC  PERIOD 

FROM  the  case  of  Honorius  we  may  pass  clean  away 
to  the  Scholastic  period,  when  the  great  systematic 
theologians  were  gathering  into  consolidated  form  the 
developments  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Six  hundred  years 
have  elapsed  since  Honorius  was  condemned  by  the 
Episcopate.  The  relation  of  Papal  to  Episcopal  power 
has  greatly  changed.  To  contrast  the  theology  of  the 
thirteenth  century  with  that  of  the  seventh  is  to  realise 
a  different  atmosphere.  Many  elements  contributed 
to  the  enormous  increase  of  papal  influence.  The 
Mohammedan  conquests  and  the  isolation  of  the 
Apostolic  Churches  of  the  East  left  the  Roman  spirit 
to  develop  its  governmental  tendencies,  unbalanced, 
unchecked  by  those  more  primitive  conceptions  which 
it  was  the  mission  of  the  unchanging  East  to  retain. 
The  calamitous  severance  between  the  East  and  West 
must  have  had  disastrous  influence  on  the  proportionate 
development  of  Papal  and  Episcopal  power. 

The  growth  also  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Roman 
See  falls  within  this  period.  It  is  neither  our  purpose 
nor  permitted  by  our  limits  to  dwell  much  on  this  aspect 
of  papal  claims.  Yet  a  reference  to  the  subject  is 
necessary,  because  the  growth  of  temporal  power  con 
tributed  to  the  general  influences  of  the  Papacy  on 
the  mediaeval  mind,  and  to  no  inconsiderable  con- 


CHAP,  iv.]    TEMPORAL  POWER  GROWTH     49 

fusion  between  the  secular  and  spiritual  spheres.  The 
learned  work  of  Gosselin,1  Superior  of  the  Seminary 
of  St  Sulpice  in  1850,  on  the  power  of  the  Pope  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  shows  how  naturally  the  temporal 
authority  grew  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the  period. 
The  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  Roman  See  arose 
simply  out  of  the  necessities  of  the  Roman  People, 
who,  being  abandoned  by  the  Empire,  intrusted  their 
temporal  interests  to  the  papal  guardianship.  Neither 
Charlemagne  nor  Pepin  were  the  founders  of  the 
temporal  sovereignty ;  they  were  but  its  protectors  and 
promoters.  It  was  founded  in  the  legitimate  consent 
of  a  helpless  and  forsaken  people.  But,  being  once 
founded,  loftier  reasons  were  gradually  created  to  justify 
and  explain  it.  Archbishop  Fenelon's  opinion,  which 
Gosselin  quotes  and  accepts,  was  that  the  deposition  of 
princes  by  the  Pope  in  the  Middle  Ages  was  based  in  the 
belief  that  none  but  Catholics  could  rule  over  Catholic 
nations.  Consequently,  a  contract  between  Prince  and 
People  was  implied :  their  loyalty  depending  on  his 
fidelity  to  Religion.  Therefore  the  Church  neither  made 
temporal  rulers  nor  unmade  them  ;  but  when  consulted 
by  the  people,  the  Pope  decided  cases  of  conscience 
arising  from  a  contract  and  an  oath  of  fidelity.  But 
this  power  to  determine  when  consulted,  easily  slid 
into  an  assertion  and  a  claim  of  a  loftier  character. 
The  double  effect  of  excommunication  on  the  religious 
and  the  temporal  status  of  the  victim  naturally 
led  to  endless  confusion :  it  exalted  the  possessor 
of  this  two-fold  power  to  a  height  which  earlier 
ages  would  have  considered  simply  amazing.  It 
was  a  principle  universally  admitted  in  the  time  of 
Gregory  VII.  that  excommunication  entailed  the  loss 
of  all  civil  rights.  Consequently,  says  Fleury,  when 

1  Translated  by  Kelly  of  Maynooth,  2  vs.,  1853. 

D 


50  THE  SCHOLASTIC  PERIOD         [CHAP. 

Gregory  VII.,  adopting  novel  maxims,  and  carrying 
them  to  greater  lengths,  openly  asserted  that,  as  Pope, 
he  had  the  right  to  depose  all  sovereigns  who  were 
rebellious  to  the  Church,  and  grounded  these  pretensions 
on  the  power  of  excommunication,  his  opponents  had 
no  defence  to  make.  Conceding  the  principle  that 
excommunication  involves  temporal  results,  Gregory 
was  invincible.  But  the  consequence  was  a  vast 
extension  of  the  papal  authority. 

And  of  course  this  vastly  extended  authority  affected 
the  weight  of  every  papal  claim.  Gosselin's  study  of 
the  temporal  power  of  the  Papacy  is  exceedingly 
interesting  as  an  illustration  of  development.  It  shows 
how  easily  developments  may  be  defended  on  theological 
theories  with  which  those  developments  had  really 
nothing  whatever  to  do.  Its  shows  how  little  we  can 
trust  ultimate  developments  merely  on  the  ground  of 
their  existence ;  as  if  prevalence  and  legitimacy  were 
invariably  one  and  the  same.  It  shows  the  insecurity 
of  assuming  that  the  theories  by  which  developments 
are  supported  are  necessarily  the  causes  by  which  they 
were  produced. 

The  Episcopate  still  retained  in  the  year  1300  its 
dignity,  as  the  ultimate  court  of  appeal  when  in  Council 
assembled ;  but  the  Papacy  had  made  gigantic  strides 
from  the  conditions  of  its  tenure  in  the  Cyprianic  age. 
The  Vincentian  test  of  Catholic  doctrine  by  identity  with 
the  past  was  being  exchanged  for  submission  to  a  living 
authority  in  Rome.  The  ancient  appeal  to  the  Universal 
Church  was  being  exchanged  for  a  theory  which 
identified  the  Roman  Communion  with  the  Catholic 
Church.  A  strong  and  dangerous  tendency  had  arisen 
to  substitute  a  priori  conceptions  of  the  appropriate 
for  appeal  to  ancient  facts.  Speculative  theories  of 
ecclesiastical  principle  were  being  made  a  substitute, 


iv.J  DE  REGIMINE  PRINCIPUM  51 

in  Scripture  reading,  for  real  interpretation.  Theories 
were  read  into  apostolic  utterances  from  which  they 
could  by  no  critical  ingenuity  be  derived. 

The  greatest  theologian  of  the  Roman  Church,  St 
Thomas  Aquinas,  is  an  embodiment  of  mediaeval 
theories  of  papal  claims.  He  died  in  1274.  The  treatise, 
De  Regimine  Principum^  whether  his  or  not,  was  univers 
ally  ascribed  to  him  in  former  days,  and  possessed  for 
many  centuries  the  weight  of  his  name  and  authority. 
It  represents,  at  any  rate,  the  prevailing  mediaeval 
view.  By  an  obvious  misuse  of  the  metaphor  that  the 
Pope  is  the  Head  of  the  Church,  it  draws  the  inference 
that  from  the  Head  all  understanding  descends  to  the 
Body.  In  the  Pope  is  the  plenitude  or  fulness  of  all 
grace  ;  for  he  alone  confers  plenary  indulgence  on  all 
sinners,  so  that  the  words  originally  applied  to  Christ 
are  also  applicable  to  him :  "  of  his  fulness  have  all 
we  received."  Certainly  those  who  accepted  habitually 
this  view  were  being  prepared  for  the  conclusion  that 
the  Church  was  the  passive  recipient  of  the  Pope's 
infallible  utterances. 

And  yet  it  by  no  means  follows  that  St  Thomas 
Aquinas  drew  the  infallibilist  inferences,  still  less  that 
he  taught  the  Vatican  doctrine.  It  is  acknowledged 
by  a  recent  Roman  theologian 1  that  while  the  theology 
of  the  Middle  Ages  on  the  primacy  attained  in  him 
its  climax,  yet  he  has  not  developed  the  doctrine 
systematically.  In  point  of  fact,  from  an  infallibilist 
standpoint,  he  still  leaves  much  to  be  desired.  He 
taught  that  "we  must  not  believe  that  the  governor 
of  the  Universal  Church  should  wish  to  deceive  any 
body,  specially  in  those  matters  which  the  whole  Church 
receives  and  approves."2  And  he  argued  from  this  in 

1  Schwane,  Hist,  Dogin.  v.  p.  321. 

2  In  Senftnfiis,  4  Disc.  20,  a,  17. 


52  THE  SCHOLASTIC  PERIOD         [CHAP. 

behalf  of  the  validity  of  indulgences  which  the  Pope 
preached  and  caused  to  be  preached.  But  this  passage 
of  Aquinas  obviously  admits  of  more  than  one  con 
struction.  It  is  general  and  vague.  It  does  not 
necessarily  ascribe  to  the  Pope  any  Infallibility  at  all. 
It  affirms  that  it  would  be  wrong  to  credit  the  Pope 
with  a  desire  to  deceive.  It  infers  that  indulgences 
possess  validity  because  the  Pope  proclaims  them,  but 
also  because  it  is  a  matter  which  the  whole  Church 
receives  and  approves.  The  infallibilist  writer  Schwane l 
urges  that  we  must  not  infer  from  the  phrase  "  which 
the  whole  Church  receives  "  that  the  Pope's  Infallibility 
depends  on  the  Church's  consent.  But  it  seems 
perfectly  clear  that  to  St  Thomas's  mind  the  reception 
and  approval  by  the  whole  Church  of  the  doctrine  in 
question  was  precisely  that  which  gave  stability  to 
the  papal  utterance  about  it.  He  does  not  write 
as  if  the  Church's  consent  was  a  necessary  sequel  to 
a  papal  decree.  In  point  of  fact,  if  this  were  so,  any 
reference  to  the  Church's  consent  might  seem  super 
fluous,  since  it  could  add  nothing  to  the  validity  of 
the  Pope's  instructions.  But  in  Aquinas's  argument  for 
indulgences  the  elements  are  two  :  the  Church's  recep 
tion  and  approval  of  the  doctrine,  and  the  papal 
utterance.  And  these  are  mutually  supporting. 
Elsewhere  Aquinas  says : — 

"If  any  one  rejected  a  decision  after  it  had  been 
made  by  the  authority  of  Universal  Church,  he  would 
be  considered  a  heretic.  And  that  authority  chiefly 
[principaliter]  resides  in  the  Supreme  Pontiff."2 

But   the  exact  force  of  his   language  is  among  his 
interpreters  a  matter  of  dispute. 

Bossuet  held   that  the   language  of  St  Thomas   on 

1  Hist.  Dogm.  v.  p.  321.  z  Summa,  2,  2,  Q.  II,  a,  2,  ad.  3. 


iv.]   WAS  S.  THOMAS  AN  INFALLIBILIST?  53 

Papal  Infallibility  is  capable  of  a  construction  not 
widely  different  from  that  of  the  School  of  Paris.1  At 
any  rate  the  idea  of  an  Infallibility  completely  indepen 
dent  of  any  endorsement  by  the  consent  of  the  Church 
is  foreign  to  his  mind.  If,  however,  in  spite  of  this 
the  Ultramontane  claims  him  still,  then  appeal  must 
be  made  from  St  Thomas  to  the  Fathers  of  an  earlier 
period. 2 

The  value  of  St  Thomas's  theological  inferences  on  the 
subject  has  been  challenged  within  the  Roman  Church 
on  the  ground  that  he  relied  upon  falsified  authorities. 
Pope  Urban  IV.,  intending  to  assist  Aquinas's  studies, 
sent  him  a  collection  of  assorted  extracts  from  the 
Fathers,  calculated  to  refute  the  errors  of  the  Gentile 
world.  Aquinas  utilised  this  collection,  confessedly, 
says  Schwane, 5  without  much  critical  endeavour  to 
sift  the  true  character  of  the  extracts.  The  impor 
tance  of  the  passages  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact 
already  mentioned  that  the  theologian  Melchior  Cano, 
contemporary  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  considered  them 
to  be  the  strongest  evidence  from  the  early  Church  in 
behalf  of  Infallibility.  Now  it  is  admitted  that  this 
collection  of  extracts  is  not  genuine.  "  It  appears,"  says 
Schwane,  himself  an  Ultramontane,  "  that  the  compiler 
permitted  himself  to  add  here  and  there  explanations." 
Other  passages  he  "  developed."  Schwane  contends 
that  he  has  not  absolutely  falsified  any;  but  admits 
that  he  ascribed  to  St  Cyril  words  which  cannot  be 
found  in  the  writings  preserved  to  us.  Schwane  suggests 
that,  possibly,  for  all  that,  they  might  be  genuine. 
Turmel  is  much  less  sanguine  about  this  possibility. 
That  Aquinas  utilised  his  authorities  in  all  sincerity 
is  indisputable.  It  is  also  indisputable  that  he  was 

1  Bausset,  Hist,  de  Bossuet,  ii.  p.  399. 

2  Bossuet,  xxi,  p,  494.  3  Hist,  Dogm.  v.  p.  333. 


54  THE  SCHOLASTIC  PERIOD    [CHAP.IV. 

deceived.     This  was  urged  very  forcibly  by  Janus  and 
Gratry  before  the  Vatican  Decisions. 

Some  maintained  that  he  would  have  arrived  in  any 
case  at  the  same  conclusion.  Others  said  that  inferences 
from  falsified  premises  mistaken  for  the  faith  of  saints 
awaken  serious  doubt  as  to  their  validity.  It  was 
also  urged,  and  probably  with  truth,  that  these  extracts 
were  not  the  basis  of  his  doctrine  on  the  primacy. 
Still  it  was  felt  that  they  contributed  to  advance 
ideas.  It  is  an  unwholesome  pedigree,  especially  when 
a  Roman  theologian  calls  these  forged  authorities  the 
strongest  passages  in  the  patristic  evidences. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  AGE  OF  THE  REFORMING  COUNCILS 

THE  development  of  theories  of  papal  power  may 
next  be  traced  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries. 
Pursuing  the  method  adopted  hitherto,  we  will  endeavour 
to  describe  the  facts  as  objectively  as  possible,  and  then 
to  relate  the  criticisms  to  which  they  have  given  rise 
within  the  Roman  obedience. 

i.  With  the  fourteenth  century  (1305)  the  Popes 
transferred  their  residence  from  Rome  to  Avignon. 
There  they  continued  for  seventy  years.  It  was  to 
the  papal  prestige  a  period  of  unmixed  calamity.  The 
authority  of  the  Church  was  subordinated  to  France. 
Rome  made  numerous  overtures  to  secure  the  Popes' 
return.  Europe  at  large  was  jealous  of  the  French 
preponderating  influence ;  and  France  was  naturally 
reluctant  to  lose  its  ascendancy. 

But  the  "  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Papacy,"  with 
its  inevitable  effect  on  theories  of  papal  power,  was  to 
be  followed  by  a  worse  disaster :  the  Great  Schism  of 
forty  years  (1378-1417).  On  the  death  of  Gregory  XI. 
in  1378  the  Cardinals  had  before  them  a  great  alter 
native  :  either  to  elect  an  Italian  and  so  secure  residence 
in  Rome,  or  to  elect  a  Frenchman  and  so  continue 
the  residence  at  Avignon.  The  Conclave  met  in  Rome, 
and  was  furiously  beset  by  magistrates  and  people, 
demanding  a  Roman  or  at  least  an  Italian  Pope. 

55 


56      AGE  OF  REFORMING  COUNCILS     [CHAP. 

External  pressure  resulted  in  a  hurried  election  and 
the  production  of  Urban  VI.  The  Cardinals  declared 
him  canonically  elected  and  treated  him  for  some  months 
as  actual  Pope.  Then,  under  pretext  that  they  had 
acted  under  compulsion,  partly,  it  is  said,  disgusted  by 
the  new  Pope's  brutality,  many  Cardinals  fled  from 
Rome,  declared  their  election  void,  and  appointed 
Robert  of  Geneva  Pope,  as  Clement  VII.  Men  have 
enquired,  men  still  enquire,  how  should  this  double 
election  be  esteemed?  Which  was  the  genuine  Pope? 
Was  the  election  of  Urban  canonical?  Was  it 
the  result  of  intimidation?  If  the  latter,  does  the 
subsequent  acknowledgment  by  the  Cardinals  cancel 
irregularities  ?  Or  was  Clement  the  real  Pope  ? l  This 
is  one  of  the  problems  of  history. 

The  historian  Pastor  sides  with  Urban  VI.2  The 
pretext  that  he  was  elected  under  compulsion  will  not 
hold  for  a  moment ;  for  all  the  Cardinals  took  part 
in  his  coronation,  and  assisted  afterwards  in  his 
ecclesiastical  functions.  They  gave  him  homage  as 
Pope  and  proclaimed  him  to  the  world.  Catherine  of 
Sienna  told  them  plainly,  "  If  what  you  say  were  as 
true  as  it  is  false,  must  you  not  have  lied  when  you  pro 
claimed  him  lawful  Pope  ?  " 3  In  any  case  Christendom 
was  now  divided  into  two  obediences.  This  lasted  for 
forty  years.  The  most  learned  canonists  differed  on 
the  question  which  of  the  two  was  the  Vicar  of  Christ. 
Distinguished  teachers  and  saintly  people  were  found 
on  either  side,  in  equally  good  faith  ;  and  a  Roman 
writer  declares  himself  unable  to  characterise  either 
with  the  title  of  Antipope.4  Nations  were  divided, 
so  were  cities  and  universities,  into  Urbanists  and 

1  Christophe,  Histoire  de  /a  Papautt,  pendant  le  XIV.  Siecle,  iii.  p.  36. 

2  Pastor,  i.  p.  119.  3  Ibid.  i.  p.  131. 

4  Christophe,  Histoire  de  la  Papaute,  pendant  le  XIV.  Sihie,  iii.  p.  37. 


v.]  THE  GREAT  SCHISM  57 

Clementines.  Urban  and  Clement  both  died,  but  each 
received  successors.  It  looked  as  if  Christendom  might 
witness  a  double  headship  becoming  part  of  the 
permanent  constitution  of  the  Church.  It  was  the 
glory  of  France,  and,  in  particular,  of  the  famous 
University  of  Paris,  then  at  the  height  of  its  power, 
to  intervene  and  take  steps  in  behalf  of  unity.  It 
was  now  A.D.  1400.  The  Avignon  line  was  now 
represented  by  Peter  de  Luna,  entitled  Benedict  XIII.  ; 
the  Italian  line  by  Angelo  Corario, entitled  Gregory  XII- 
Christendom  was  scandalised  by  their  mutual  ex 
communications. 

The  state  of  the  Church  was  deplorable.  Gregory 
asserted  that  as  Pope  he  was  above  law ;  Benedict  that 
no  appeal  from  a  Pope  was  permissible.1  This,  says 
Bossuet,  was  the  first  time  in  Christendom  that  a  Pope 
ventured  expressly  to  condemn  all  appeals  from  his 
authority.2  A  recent  historian  of  the  Papacy  says  : — 

"  The  amount  of  evil  wrought  by  the  Schism  of  1 378, 
the  longest  known  in  the  history  of  the  Papacy,  can  only 
be  estimated  when  we  reflect  that  it  occurred  at  a 
moment  when  thorough  reform  in  ecclesiastical  affairs 
was  a  most  urgent  need.  This  was  now  utterly  out  of 
the  question  ;  and  indeed  all  evils  which  had  crept  into 
ecclesiastical  life  were  infinitely  increased.  Respect  for 
the  Holy  See  was  also  greatly  impaired,  and  the  Popes 
became  more  than  ever  dependent  on  the  temporal 
power,  for  the  Schism  allowed  each  Prince  to  choose 
which  Pope  he  would  acknowledge.  In  the  eyes  of  the 
people  the  simple  fact  of  a  double  Papacy  must  have 
shaken  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  to  its  very  founda 
tions.  It  may  truly  be  said  that  these  fifty  years  of 
Schism  prepared  the  way  for  the  great  Apostasy  of  the 
sixteenth  century."  8 

Through  all  this  crisis,  the  Sorbonne,  the  theological 

1  Bossuet,  Defense^  i,  p.  567.         2  Jbid.  ii.  p.  325.         3  Pastor,  i.  p.  142. 


58      AGE  OF  REFORMING  COUNCILS     [CHAP. 

faculty  of  the  University  of  Paris,  was  the  strenuous 
advocate  of  the  doctrine  that  the  supreme  authority  in 
Christendom  was  the  Council,  not  the  Pope.  They 
declared  that  things  were  come  to  such  a  pass,  through 
the  Schism,  that  on  all  sides  men  did  not  hesitate 
publicly  to  affirm  that  it  was  purely  indifferent  whether 
there  were  two  Popes  or  twelve.  Gerson,  the  celebrated 
Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris,  reassured  men  by 
asserting  that  the  ultimate  authority  in  Christendom 
was  the  entire  Church  and  not  the  Pope.  This  teaching 
implies  a  denial  of  Papal  Infallibility :  and  with  this 
teaching  the  entire  Church  in  France  was  identified. 

The  perplexity  of  the  situation  forced  upon  men's 
attention  certain  neglected  aspects  of  ecclesiastical 
truth.  It  compelled  them  to  consider,  what  resources, 
apart  from  the  Pope,  did  the  Church  possess?  The 
rival  Pontiffs  scandalising  Christendom  by  their  selfish 
indifference,  as  it  appeared,  to  the  Church's  real  interests, 
challenged  reflection  on  the  relation  between  the  Papacy 
and  the  Church.  Yet  where  was  the  authority  com 
petent  to  intervene?  Theories  of  papal  power  had 
greatly  developed  since  the  age  of  Honorius.  The 
Pope's  practical  ascendancy  was  very  different  from  that 
which  existed  eight  hundred  years  before.  Habitual 
acquiescence  in  large  practical  assumptions  made  it 
harder  now  than  in  earlier  times  to  find  the  true 
solution.  The  problem,  therefore,  absorbed  the  gravest 
attention  of  the  ablest  theologians  of  the  day. 

The  Pope,  said  Gerson,  is  removable  by  his  own 
voluntary  abdication.1  This  was  historically  exemplified 
in  the  case  of  Pope  Celestine,  who,  while  he  abdicated 
the  Papacy,  is  elevated  among  the  saints.  And  if 
removable  by  his  own  act,  he  must  be  also  removable 
by  the  Church,  or  by  its  representative,  a  General  Council. 

1  Gerson,  De  Auferibilitate  Papa  ab  Ecclesia. 


v.]  COUNCIL  OF   PISA  59 

For  since  he  can  give  his  Spouse  a  writing  of  divorce 
ment,  she  must  possess  an  equal  liberty.  Moreover, 
no  office,  dignity,  or  ministry,  exists  except  for  the 
edification  and  good  of  the  community.  Many  cases 
may  arise  in  which  the  Church  will  not  be  edified 
unless  the  Pope  either  abdicates  or  is  deposed.  There 
is  no  contradiction  between  this  principle  and  the 
legitimate  sense  of  the  injunction — "  Touch  not  Mine 
Anointed  ! "  If  the  Greeks  were  willing  to  return  to 
unity  conditionally  on  the  removal  of  the  existing  Pope, 
Gerson  has  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  for  the  sake  of 
so  great  a  blessing  this  concession  should  be  made. 

From  discussion  men  advanced  to  action.  The  two 
Colleges  of  Cardinals  united,  and  summoned  a  Council 
of  the  Church  to  be  held  at  Pisa  in  1409.  The  signi 
ficance  of  the  Council  of  Pisa  lies  in  its  assumption  of 
superiority  over  Popes.  The  trend  of  several  centuries 
had  been  the  other  way.  Now  the  balance  of  power 
was  asserted  and  employed.  The  explicit  intention  of 
the  Council  was  the  healing  of  the  Schism  and  the 
reforming  of  the  Church  alike  in  its  head  and  members.1 
It  declared  its  action  necessary  and  lawful,  and  pledged 
itself  not  to  dissolve  until  it  had  effected  a  real  reforma 
tion.  It  discussed  at  full  length  the  respective  claimants 
to  the  Roman  See  ;  and  decided  that  Peter  de  Luna  and 
Angelo  Corario,  named  in  their  respective  obediences 
Benedict  XIII.  and  Gregory  XII.,  were  both  schismatics, 
and  were  hereby  deposed.  This  deposition  of  Pope  by 
Council  was  hitherto  unexampled. 

The  Roman  See  was  now  declared  to  be  vacant,  and 
then  the  Council  proceeded  to  fill  the  vacancy  by  the 
creation  of  a  new  Pope  under  title  of  Alexander  V. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  this  creation  was  un 
wise  because  premature.  Its  success  depended  on  the 

1  Bonnechose,  C.  Const,  i.  p.  40. 


60      AGE  OF  REFORMING  COUNCILS    [CHAP. 

consent  of  Christendom.  And  since  neither  Benedict 
nor  Gregory  would  resign,  it  resulted  in  a  triple 
obedience.  To  the  Italian  and  Avignonese  lines  was 
now  added  the  Pisan.1  Alexander  V.  vainly  denounced 
those  "  two  monstrous  sons  of  perdition  " ;  and  then,  after 
an  exemplary  pontificate  of  ten  months,  died  at  Bologna, 
and  was  replaced  by  the  notorious  and  unfortunate, 
Balthasar  Cossa,  Master  of  Bologna,  who  assumed  the 
style  of  John  XXIII.  Between  these  three  Popes  there 
followed  the  routine  of  mutual  anathema  and  ex 
communication,  which  continued  to  lower  the  dignity 
of  the  Papacy  in  the  esteem  of  Europe.  Thus  the 
Council  of  Pisa  failed  to  heal  the  afflicted  Church,  or 
remedy  the  Schism. 

In  the  Council  of  Constance,  1414,  the  attempt  was 
made  again.  Briefly,  after  numerous  struggles  John 
XXIIL,  Benedict  XIII.,  and  Gregory  XII.,  were  all 
declared  deposed,  and  eventually  this  sentence,  through 
the  influence  of  the  Emperor  Sigismund,  prevailed.  A 
new  Pope  was  created  in  the  person  of  Martin  V.  The 
three  obediences  were  reunited,  and  the  peace  of  the 
Church  restored. 

The  main  interest  of  this  Council,  however,  lies  in  its 
famous  declaration.  It  claimed  to  be  an  Ecumenical 
Council,  legitimately  assembled  with  the  authority  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  representing  the  Catholic  Church,  having 
its  power  direct  from  Jesus  Christ.  Accordingly,  to  its 
decision  in  matters  of  faith  as  well  as  in  other  things, 
persons  of  whatever  rank,  including  papal,  are  sub 
ordinate. 

"This  holy  Synod  of  Constance,  being  a  General 
Council,  lawfully  assembled  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
representing  the  Church  militant,  has  received  immedi 
ately  from  Jesus  Christ  a  power  to  which  all  persons  of 
whatever  rank  and  dignity,  not  excepting  the  Pope 

1  Baronius,  Annals> 


v.]  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  61 

himself,  are  bound  to  submit  in  those  matters  which 
concern  the  faith ;  the  extirpation  of  the  existing 
Schism ;  and  the  reformation  of  the  Church  in  its 
head  and  its  members." 

"Whosoever,  be  his  dignity  what  it  may,  without 
excepting  the  Pope,  shall  obstinately  refuse  to  obey 
the  statutes,  ordinances,  and  precepts  of  the  present 
Council,  or  of  any  other  General  Council  lawfully 
assembled,  shall  be  subjected,  unless  he  repent,  to 
proportionate  penance,  and  punished  according  to  his 
deserts"  (etc.). 

2.  So  far,  then,  for  the  details  of  history.  We  are 
next  to  follow  the  criticisms  of  theological  schools  within 
the  Roman  Communion  upon  the  facts.  Bellarmine, 
the  Jesuit  theologian,  was  a  Cardinal  in  1600.  While 
claiming  for  the  Pope  a  supremacy  and  Infallibility,  in 
the  most  uncompromising  terms,  and  with  a  fulness 
and  clearness  hitherto  unexampled,  he  was  naturally 
challenged  to  harmonise  his  theories  with  the  facts  of 
the  Councils  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

It  was  argued  that  the  Council  of  Constance  possessed 
an  ecumenical  character.  Now  either  this  claim  is 
legitimate  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is,  we  must  accept  its 
principles,  which  affirm  that  an  Ecumenical  Council 
has  its  authority  direct  from  Christ,  and  that  all,  of 
whatever  rank,  including  papal,  are  subjected  to  its 
decisions.  If  it  is  not,  then  its  work  in  deposing 
John  XXIIL,  Gregory  XII.,  and  Benedict  XIII.,  and 
in  replacing  them  by  Martin  V.  is  invalid,  and  cannot 
be  sustained.  Consequently,  the  whole  line  of  Martin's 
successors  is  also  illegitimate. 

Bellarmine  denied  that  Constance  was  an  Ecumenical 
Council.  For,  he  said,  it  included  only  a  third  of  the 
Church,  one  obedience  out  of  three.  He  denied  also 
that  its  election  of  Martin  V.  was  thereby  invalidated. 
An  assembly  may  have  power  to  elect,  but  not  to 


62      AGE  OF  REFORMING  COUNCILS    [CHAP. 

define  in  matters  of  faith.  Constance  possessed  ex 
ceptional  power  in  an  exceptional  time.  For  a 
doubtful  Pope  is  no  Pope  at  all. 

With  regard  to  the  ecumenical  character  of  the  Council 
of  Constance,  Bossuet  replied  to  Bellarmine  that  his 
criticism  upon  it  did  not  go  far  enough.  For  the 
Council  described  itself  as  a  general  Synod  assembled 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  rightly  and  justly  summoned, 
opened,  and  enacted.  Now  this  account  of  itself  is 
either  a  simple  truth,  or  a  blasphemous  assumption. 
Its  opponents  dare  not  venture  to  call  it  the  latter. 

It  is  also  quite  misleading  to  say,  as  Bellarmine  does, 
that  the  Council  of  Constance  represented  only  one 
out  of  three  obediences.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
vast  majority  of  Christendom  was  represented  there. 
The  adherents  of  Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict  XIII. 
had  by  that  time  dwindled  to  relative  insignificance. 
The  great  nationalities,  the  theological  faculties,  the 
religious  orders,  were  all  on  the  Council's  side.  If 
insignificant  fractions,  with  Popes  of  doubtful  claims, 
still  remained  for  a  period  aloof,  this  did  not  seriously 
affect  the  claims  of  Constance  to  a  representative 
character  in  Christendom.  Still  less  is  it  possible  that 
their  claim  to  authority  as  assembled  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  constituting  a  General  Council,  can  be 
condemned  as  a  falsehood  and  a  blasphemy. 

Bellarmine  himself  admitted  that  the  Council  of  Basle 
decided  with  the  Legate's  consent  that  the  Council  is 
above  the  Pope,  which  is  certainly  now  considered 
erroneous.  Now !  echoes  Bossuet :  that  is  a  sign  of 
novelty.  And  by  whom  ?  By  a  private  theologian. 
Is,  then,  the  opinion  of  a  private  teacher  to  be  set 
above  the  unanimous  decree  of  a  Universal  Council 
presided  over  by  the  Legates  of  the  Apostolic  See?1 
1  Bossuet,  t.  xxi.  p.  57. 


v.]    CRITICISMS  IN  ROMAN  SCHOOLS        63 

The  argument  that  these  Councils  possessed  excep 
tional  power  in  an  exceptional  time  was,  according  to 
Bossuet,1  refuted  by  the  Councils  themselves.  No  doubt 
the  Assembly  of  Constance  declared  its  mission  to  be 
the  termination  of  the  Schism,  and  the  union  and 
reformation  of  the  Church  in  its  head  and  members — a 
temporary  work.  But  it  also  affirmed  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  all  men  of  whatever  rank  and  condition,  even 
papal,  to  submit  to  the  authority  not  only  of  this 
Council,  but  also  of  every  other  General  Council  law 
fully  assembled.  Thus  the  supremacy  of  the  Council 
is  asserted  to  be  not  a  mere  temporary  expedient  to 
solve  exceptional  difficulties,  but  an  inherent  character 
istic  of  the  Universal  Church  in  this  representative  form 
of  self-expression. 

Bellarmine's  second  main  argument  against  the 
Council  of  Constance  was  that  Pope  Martin  V.  never 
confirmed  its  decrees.  This  involved  two  points :  a 
speculative  theory  of  the  nature  of  papal  confirmation  ; 
and  also  a  question  of  fact.  Bossuet  replied  to  the 
speculative  theory  that  confirmation  of  the  acts  of  a 
Council  did  not  imply  what  Bellarmine  supposed ;  for 
Popes  have  often  confirmed  the  acts  and  decrees  of 
their  predecessors,  which  certainly  on  Ultramontane 
principles  could  not  be  interpreted  as  imparting  to  them 
a  validity  not  possessed  before.  Confirmation  merely 
meant  acceptance,  assent.  Beyond  it  lay  the  further 
enquiry :  What  is  the  inherent  value  of  a  Universal 
Council's  decree  apart  from  papal  acceptance  ?  Bossuet 
would  answer  that  question  one  way,  Bellarmine  another. 
And  in  so  doing  each  would  have  his  followers ;  for 
each  represented  schools  of  thought  within  the  Roman 
Communion. 

Then  as  to  the  question  of  fact : 

1   Works,  t.  xxi.  p.  551. 


64      AGE  OF  REFORMING  COUNCILS     [CHAP. 

Bellarmine's  assertion  that  Martin  V.  did  not  accept 
the  decisions  of  Constance  is,  according  to  Bossuet, 
particularly  unfortunate.  For  Martin  V.  was,  as  Cardinal 
Colonna,  present  through  the  sessions  of  Pisa  and  of 
Constance,  and  influential  in  passing  the  Council's  claims 
to  be  ecumenical  and  assembled  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
And  yet  this  Cardinal,  without  any  revocation  of  this 
opinion,  was  elected  to  the  Papal  See.  Martin's  own 
mind  on  the  authority  of  General  Councils  is  sufficiently 
clear.  All  that  Bellarmine  found  to  urge  was  that 
Martin  said  he  confirmed  what  had  been  done  con- 
ciliariter\  that  is,  says  Bellarmine,  in  the  proper  way, 
as  Councils  should :  which  he  interpreted  to  mean,  after 
careful  examination  into  facts — a  condition  which  was 
not  fulfilled  at  Constance.  And,  therefore,  Martin  did 
not  intend  to  confirm  this  claim. 

Bossuet  considered  that  nothing  could  exceed  the 
feebleness  of  the  argument.  The  Roman  Pontiffs,  says 
Bossuet,  have  never  spoken  of  the  Council  of  Constance 
without  veneration ;  have  never  passed  any  adverse 
criticism  upon  it.  Paul  V.  had  its  proceedings  published 
by  the  Vatican,  complete,  on  a  level  of  authority  with 
the  Council  of  Nicea.1 

The  long  struggle  of  the  fifteenth  century  between 
two  conceptions  of  Ecclesiastical  Authority — that  which 
placed  the  ultimate  decision  in  the  Collective  Episcopate, 
and  that  which  placed  it  in  the  solitary  Voice — issued, 
on  the  whole,  to  the  advantage  of  the  latter.  However 
great  the  services  which  the  reforming  Council  rendered 
to  Christendom,  and  great  undoubtedly  they  were,  yet 
the  blunders  perpetrated  by  them,  and  their  ultimate 
collapse,  seriously  compromised  their  rightful  claims. 
The  Papacy  had  learnt  lessons  it  was  never  likely  to 
forget,  and  the  following  period  was  instinctively  a 

1  Bossuet,  Works,  t.  xxi.  p.  53. 


v.]  TEACHING  OF   HADRIAN   VI  65 

period  of  self  -  protection  and  recovered  authority. 
Wonderful  as  it  seems,  even  the  characters  of 
Alexander  VI.,  Julius  II.,  and  Leo  X.  did  not 
prevent  an  advance  of  the  papal  power  over  the  limits 
which  it  occupied  in  the  previous  period.  None  of 
these  individuals  asserted  their  Infallibility.  Their 
interests  were  elsewhere.  Pope  Hadrian  VI.  was 
successor  to  Leo  X.  As  Professor  of  Theology  at 
Louvain,  he  published  the  following  observations  on 
Infallibility  :— - 

"  If  by  the  Roman  Church  is  understood  its  head, 
that  is  the  Pope,  it  is  certain  that  it  can  err,  even  in 
those  matters  which  concern  the  Faith,  by  publishing 
heresy  in  its  decisions  and  decrees.  For  many  Roman 
Pontiffs  have  been  heretics.  Of  recent  times  it  is 
reported  that  Pope  John  XXII.  publicly  taught,  declared, 
and  commanded  to  be  believed  by  all,  that  purified  souls 
do  not  have  the  clear  vision  of  God  before  the  Final 
Judgment." 

Bossuet  calls  the  readers  attention  to  Pope  Hadrian's 
view  of  the  Papacy.1  How  clearly  he  taught,  and  held 
as  indisputable,  that  the  Pope  could  be  a  heretic  not 
only  in  his  private  capacity,  but  in  his  official  decisions 
and  decrees!  How  emphatically  he  rejects  what  his 
predecessor  "  publicly  taught,  declared,  and  commanded 
to  be  believed  by  all !  "  Whether  any  explanation  of 
the  teaching  of  Pope  John  XXII.  can  be  attempted 
is  not  to  the  point.  In  any  case  the  fact  remains 
that  Hadrian  VI.  held  these  ideas  of  Papal  Fallibility. 
And  if  he  wrote  this  as  a  theologian,  before  his 
elevation  to  the  Papacy,  there  is  no  trace  that  he  ever 
retracted  his  doctrine,  as  he  must  have  done  had 
he  come  to  think  it  erroneous.  On  the  contrary,  he 
published  it  after  becoming  Pope  (1522). 

i.  p.  37. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT 

THE  next  crisis  between  papal  and  episcopal  theories 
of  authority  is  reached  in  the  Council  of  Trent.  The 
primary  purpose  of  that  Assembly  was  to  reply  to  those 
without,  rather  than  to  determine  opinions  within  the 
Roman  Communion.  But  the  effort  to  formulate  their 
own  convictions  disclosed  sharply  contested  theories 
within.  The  conflict  of  opposing  schools  became  par 
ticularly  conspicuous  when  the  Sacrament  of  Orders 
came  up  for  consideration  in  November  1562.  The 
century  and  a  half  between  Constance  and  Trent  had 
somewhat  diminished  the  impression  of  the  Schism. 
Teaching  on  the  supremacy  of  the  Council  over  the 
Pope  was  naturally  less  emphatic  now  than  in  those 
disastrous  days.  Yet  the  school  which  considered  the 
Pope  supreme,  and  that  which  considered  the  Collective 
Episcopate  to  hold  that  high  position,  coexisted  within 
the  Roman  Body  ;  just  as  the  entire  previous  develop 
ment  would  lead  us  to  expect.  In  the  Council  Chamber 
of  Trent,  from  the  lips  of  Bishops,  both  theories  are 
sharply  stated. 

On  the  papal  side  it  was  claimed  that  consecration 
to  the  Episcopate  confers  orders  but  not  jurisdiction. 
Jurisdiction  is  the  authority  to  govern  the  Christian 
flock.  And  it  was  argued  that  a  Bishop  does  not 

66 


CHAP,  vi.]     EPISCOPAL  JURISDICTION  67 

necessarily  possess  jurisdiction.  He  possesses  juris 
diction  when  the  flock  has  been  assigned  to  him. 
But,  said  the  papal  advocates,  it  is  the  Pope  who 
gives  to  the  Bishop  his  flock.  Consequently,  it  is  the 
Pope  who  confers  the  jurisdiction. 

The  real  basis  of  this  theory  is  the  opinion  that  all 
jurisdiction  was  originally  conferred  by  Christ  upon 
St  Peter ;  that  it  belongs  exclusively  to  him  and  his 
successors;  that  the  plenary  jurisdiction  of  St  Peter 
was  transmitted,  but  not  that  of  the  other  Apostles. 
The  papal  advocates  in  the  Council  of  Trent  frankly 
stated  their  anxiety  to  protect  the  papal  power.  If  the 
Pope  in  conveying  jurisdiction  was  only  instrumental, 
then  the  plenitude  of  power  was  not  really  his.  But 
whatever  the  Bishops  are,  the  Pope  must  be  the  source 
of  all  authority.  It  was  even  asserted  that  Bishops 
are  superior  to  priests  not  by  divine  right,  but  by  papal 
permission.  The  Pope,  it  was  declared,  had  power  to 
deprive,  transfer,  or  depose  the  Bishops  at  will,  as  might 
seem  to  him  expedient  for  the  Universal  or  the  local 
Church.  So,  at  least,  a  Bishop  said.  We  shall  see 
this  theory  bearing  fruits  in  France  in  the  days  of 
Napoleon.  Another  Bishop  even  proclaimed  that  our 
Lord  baptized  St  Peter  only  among  the  Apostles,  while 
Peter  baptized  the  rest,  and  created  them  Bishops  of 
the  Church. 

On  the  other  side,  the  theory  of  supreme  episcopal 
right,  commission,  and  authority  was  firmly  and  widely 
maintained.  Consecration,  it  was  affirmed,  conferred 
jurisdiction  as  well  as  orders.  Indeed  jurisdiction  is 
essential  to  the  episcopal  function ;  and  consecration 
cannot  confer  an  inadequate  mutilated  power.  In 
jurisdiction  we  should  distinguish  the  capacity  and 
its  exercise.  The  capacity  is  bestowed  direct  by 
Christ  in  consecration ;  the  particular  sphere  of  its 


68  THE   COUNCIL   OF   TRENT          [CHAP. 

exercise  is  accidental  and  subordinate.  Appeal  was 
made  to  the  Council  of  Constance  in  support  of 
this.  Accordingly,  Bishops  are  Vicars  of  Christ. 
They  are  also  successors  of  the  Apostles.  All  the 
Apostles  received  jurisdiction  direct  from  Christ.  The 
Bishops  are  their  true  successors,  therefore  their 
right  is  divine.  The  divine  right  of  the  Pope  can 
be  rested  on  no  other  ground  than  on  his  succession 
to  St  Peter.  By  an  equal  reason  the  Bishops  are 
successors  of  the  Apostles.  Christ  did  not  only 
institute  Peter  and  his  successors,  but  also  the  Apostles 
and  theirs.  In  the  primitive  Church,  so  Bishops 
argued  at  Trent,  the  papal  theory  did  not  exist.  For 
Titus  and  Timothy  were  appointed  by  St  Paul,  and 
others  by  the  other  Apostles,  without  any  authority  from 
or  reference  to  the  Supreme  Pontiff.  Indeed  the  Keys 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  were  given  to  St  Peter,  but 
not  to  him  alone. 

Between  these  conflicting  schools  others  endeavoured 
to  mediate.  A  member  of  the  Council  thought  it  almost 
sacrilege  to  go  on  discussing  the  Pope's  authority  when 
they  had  no  mandate  so  to  do.  Another  pleaded  that 
no  discussion  should  be  held  on  episcopal  jurisdiction. 
The  condemnation  of  either  opinion  would  be  the 
repudiation  of  many  accredited  teachers.  Another 
deprecated  controverted  points.  What,  he  exclaimed, 
will  the  heretics  say  when  they  hear  that  we,  after 
fifteen  hundred  years,  are  enquiring  by  what  right 
Bishops  exist?  These  questions  should  be  avoided  as 
encouraging  heretics  and  scandalising  Catholics.  The 
proper  theme  for  the  Council's  consideration  was  rather, 
How  is  the  episcopal  office  to  be  rightly  discharged  ? 
This  is  what  the  world  expects  the  Council  to  decide. 
Thus  he  recalled  them  to  practical  reform.  Vainly  did 
the  presiding  Legate  remind  them  that  the  Council 


vi.]  EPISCOPAL  JURISDICTION  69 

was  called  to  condemn  heretics,  not  to  discuss  matters 
controverted  among  Catholics. 

But  party  feeling  was  very  strong.  A  Spanish  Bishop 
ventured  to  observe  that  the  Canon  of  Nicaea  (4) 
on  Episcopal  consecration  made  no  reference  whatever 
to  the  Pope.  This  created  an  uproar.  The  Italian 
Bishops  shouted,  "  Anathema,  burn  him,  he  is  a  heretic." 

The  meeting  closed  in  indescribable  confusion.  When 
the  subject  was  resumed,  on  the  following  day,  the 
Legates  expressed  themselves  firmly  resolved  to  main 
tain  the  dignity  of  the  Council,  even  if  necessary  by 
dissolving  the  Assembly.  The  Cardinal  de  Lorraine, 
head  of  the  Bishops  from  France,  supported  the  Legates. 
He  is  said  to  have  observed  that  if  such  an  insult  had 
been  offered  to  a  French  Bishop,  he  would  have  left 
the  Council  with  all  the  French  contingent  and  returned 
to  France.  Cardinal  de  Lorraine  made  no  secret  of  his 
adherence  to  the  principles  of  the  French  Church. 

"  I  am  a  Gallican,"  he  said  in  a  letter  to  Rome, 
"brought  up  in  the  University  of  Paris,  in  which  the 
authority  of  a  General  Council  is  esteemed  superior  to 
that  of  a  Pope,  and  they  who  hold  the  contrary  are 
condemned  as  heretics.  In  France  the  Council  of 
Constance  is  throughout  considered  Ecumenical."1 

It  is  said  that  if  the  question  had  been  pressed  by 
the  presiding  Legates  to  a  division,  they  could  have 
obtained  a  majority.  But  they  could  not  have  obtained, 
on  the  disputed  points,  anything  approaching  unanimity. 
Accordingly,  the  controversy  on  the  source  of  episcopal 
jurisdiction  was  left  finally  undetermined.  So  far  as 
the  Decisions  of  Trent  are  concerned  there  was  nothing 
on  this  matter  to  prohibit  retention  of  the  ancient  view. 

There  was  an  anxiety  in  Rome  not  to  push  things 

1  Richerius,  Vindicia  Gall.  p.  13. 


70  THE   COUNCIL   OF    TRENT          [CHAP. 

to  antagonism  and  division.  An  historian  of  the  Council 
says  that  the  Pope  advised  the  Legates  that  nothing 
should  be  defined  without  the  Bishops'  unanimous 
consent : l  a  maxim  to  which  constant  appeal  was 
made  from  the  Age  of  Trent  to  that  of  the  Vatican.2 
The  appeal  was  natural,  for  this  maxim  harmonised 
with  the  principle  that  the  ultimate  decision  in  faith 
rested  with  the  Collective  Episcopate. 

Since  Spanish  and  French  opposition  in  the  Council 
of  Trent  frustrated  any  endorsement  of  Italian  theories 
of  jurisdiction,  it  is  clear  what  would  have  been  the 
result  of  any  attempt  to  make  decrees  on  papal  authority. 
No  further  addition  was  made  in  this  direction.  Belief 
in  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Council  in  matters  of 
faith  was  left,  so  far  as  Trent  was  concerned,  exactly 
where  it  was  before.  It  remained  the  conviction  of  the 
Church  in  France. 

The  correspondence  between  Rome  and  the  Legates 
at  Trent  has  never  been  published  yet.  Members  of 
the  Council  of  the  Vatican  asked  permission  to  see  it, 
but  Theiner,  librarian  of  the  Vatican,  was  not  allowed 
to  show  the  documents.  Lord  Acton 3  says  that  Theiner 
deemed  the  concealment  prudent. 

Whether  that  opinion  is  correct  or  not,  and  it  has 
been  disputed,  what  is  certain  is  that  if  a  comparison 
be  made  between  the  relation  of  Pope  and  Council 
at  Trent  and  at  the  Vatican,  a  vast  development  of 
papal  authority  will  be  found  in  the  later  period,  and 
a  corresponding  diminution  of  the  independent  action 
of  the  Collective  Episcopate.  It  will  be  sufficient 
here  to  note  that  at  Trent  the  claims  of  minorities 
were  respected  ;  that  nothing  was  passed  without  moral 
unanimity ;  that  the  Bishops  framed  the  regulations  by 

1  Pallavicini,  XIX.  ii.  2  Cf.  Bossuet,  xxi.  p.  24. 

3  Hist.  Freedom,  p.  431. 


vi.]    TRENT  AND  VATICAN  COMPARED     71 

which  they  were  to  be  controlled ;  that  no  methods 
of  procedure  were  imposed  upon  them  from  without ; 
that  the  Roman  Pontiff  of  that  day  made  no  attempt 
to  force  new  dogmas  on  large  and  reluctant  minorities. 
These  comparisons  were  made  within  the  Roman 
Church,  when  the  later  Assembly  had  shown  its 
character. 


CHAPTER   VII 

CARDINAL  BELLARMINE 

NOTHING  can  better  illustrate  the  development  of 
thought  on  the  papal  power  after  the  Council  of  Trent 
than  the  theories  of  Cardinal  Bellarmine.  A  nephew  of 
one  Pope  and  friend  of  another,  a  Jesuit,  resident  in 
Rome,  a  Cardinal  in  1600,  he  strikingly  represents  the 
extreme  tendencies  of  the  Italian  School.  He  put  forth 
to  the  world  in  his  volumes  of  Controversies  a  systematic 
and  elaborated  conception  of  supremacy  and  Infallibility 
certainly  unsurpassed. 

The  supremacy  of  Peter  is  upheld  on  the  ground  that 
our  Lord  said  to  him  in  the  Apostles'  presence,  "  Feed  my 
sheep."  In  this  injunction  all  sheep  must  be  included. 
And  therefore  the  Apostles  themselves  are  sheep  whom 
Peter  must  feed.  While  the  Apostles,  it  may  be  admitted, 
derive  their  jurisdiction  direct  from  Christ,  the  Bishops 
receive  it  direct  from  the  Pope.  Confirmation  of  this 
principle  is  sought  in  the  relation  of  Moses  to  the 
Elders,  and  also  in  the  monarchical  character  of  the 
Church's  constitution.  According  to  Bellarmine,  it 
is  essential  to  the  monarchical  idea  that  all  authority 
reside  in  one,  and  from  that  one  be  communicated  to 
others.  The  Bishops  are  not  successors  of  the  Apostles  ; 
since  the  latter  were  not  ordinary  but  extraordinary  and 
delegated  pastors,  and  as  such  have  no  successors  at 

72 


CHAP,  vii.]  THEORIES  ON  INFALLIBILITY      73 

all.  From  these  principles  the  relation  of  the  Collective 
Episcopate,  or  Ecumenical  Council,  to  the  Pope  may  be 
readily  imagined.  Existing  theories  as  to  Papal  Infalli 
bility  are  grouped  by  Bellarmine  as  four.  First,  that  the 
Pope,  even  with  an  Ecumenical  Council,  can  be  a  heretic 
and  teach  heresy,  and  has  actually  so  done.  This  is  the 
opinion  of  Lutheran  and  Calvinist.  Secondly,  that  the 
Pope,  if  he  speak  apart  from  an  Ecumenical  Council, 
can  be  a  heretic  and  teach  heresy,  and  has  actually  done 
so.  This  is  the  Parisian  view,  held  by  Gerson  and  Pope 
Hadrian  VI.  Thirdly,  that  the  Pope  cannot  possibly, 
under  any  circumstances,  be  a  heretic  nor  teach  heresy. 
For  this  opinion  Bellarmine  only  quotes  one  writer 
(Pighius),  of  whom  Bossuet  observes  that  nobody 
endorses  his  absurdities.  Fourthly,  that  the  Pope, 
whether  he  can  be  a  heretic  or  not,  cannot  define  any 
thing  heretical  to  be  believed  by  the  whole  Church. 
This  Bellarmine  calls  the  most  prevalent  opinion  of 
nearly  all  Catholics.  He  admits  that  various  advocates 
of  it  interpolate  various  conditions  of  its  exercise,  such  as 
consultation  with  his  advisers,  mature  reflection,  and  so 
forth.  But  he  thinks  that  they  would  deny  that  these 
conditions  can  ever  be  unfulfilled ;  on  the  ground  that 
God  who  designs  the  end  must  also  arrange  the  means. 

Of  these  four  opinions  Bellarmine  proceeds  to  pro 
nounce  the  first  heretical.  The  second  he  will  not 
venture  to  term  actually  heretical,  because  its  advocates 
are,  so  far,  tolerated  by  the  Church.  This  audacious 
statement  should  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  entire 
previous  history  of  Christendom.  Yet  Bellarmine  holds 
it  erroneous,  and  proximate  to  heresy ;  and  that  it 
might  deservedly  be  declared  heretical  by  a  decision  of 
the  Church.  The  third  opinion  he  pronounces  probable, 
but  not  certain. 

The   last   is   most   certain,  and   to   be   taught.      He 


74  CARDINAL   BELLARMINE          [CHAP. 

supports  it  by  asserting  that  no  appeal  is  ever  per 
missible  from  a  Pope  to  a  General  Council ;  that  not 
only  the  Pope  himself  is  inerrable  in  matters  of  faith, 
but  even  the  particular  Roman  Church  in  Italy  cannot 
err.  This  opinion  at  least  is  pious  and  most  probable ; 
although  not  so  certain  that  the  contrary  can  be  called 
heretical.  But,  even  with  this,  Bellarmine  does  not  feel 
that  his  wonderful  construction  is  yet  secure.  Accord 
ingly  he  asserts  that  it  is  probable,  and  may  be  piously 
believed,  not  that  the  Pontiff  cannot  officially  err,  but 
even  that  as  a  particular  individual  he  cannot  be  a 
heretic,  or  pertinaciously  believe  anything  contrary  to  the 
faith.  This  appears  to  Bellarmine  essential  to  protect 
the  Pope's  official  Infallibility.  For  how,  he  asks,  could 
a  Pope,  if  inwardly  heretical,  strengthen  his  brethren  in 
faith  and  teach  the  truth?  No  doubt  the  Almighty 
could  extort  a  true  confession  from  the  heart  of  a 
heretic  just  as  He  put  true  words  in  the  mouth  of 
Balaam's  ass.  But,  to  Bellarmine's  reflection,  this  pro 
cedure  would  be  violent,  and  hardly  in  accord  with 
that  Providential  Wisdom  which  sweetly  disposeth  all 
things. 

After  this  elevation  of  papal  authority  to  the  highest 
height,  there  necessarily  follows  a  corresponding  de 
preciation  of  the  value  of  the  Collective  Episcopate 
and  its  utterances  in  Council  assembled.  General 
Councils,  before  the  Pope  confirms  their  decisions,  may 
err,  unless  the  Fathers  in  defining  follow  the  Pope's 
instructions.  He  is  aware  that  the  School  of  Paris, 
and  all  who  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  Council 
over  the  Pope,  will  reject  this.  The  Parisian  Doctors 
hold  that  a  General  Council  cannot  err  even  apart 
from  papal  confirmation.  But  if  it  could  not  err  then 
it  would  be  final ;  and  if  so,  where  would  be  space  for 
papal  confirmation  ?  Accordingly  Bellarmine  could  not 


VIL]         THEORIES   ON   INFALLIBILITY       75 

possibly  endorse  their  view.  He  knows  that  his 
opponents  will  retort :  General  Councils  anathematise 
those  who  contradict  ;  they  do  not  restrain  their 
anathemas  until  the  Pope  has  confirmed  them.  Bellar- 
mine  answers :  They  must  certainly  mean  that  their 
anathemas  are  conditional  on  the  Pope's  endorsement ! 

What  forces  Bellarmine  to  these  eccentricities  is 
his  opinion  that  no  authority  was  given  by  Christ  to 
the  Universal  Church  but  only  to  St  Peter.  Conse 
quently,  if  the  General  Council  represent  the  Universal 
Church,  yet  it  cannot  possess  what  the  entire  Body  did 
not  receive.  To  Bellarmine's  view  the  Supreme  Pontiff 
is  simply  and  absolutely  above  the  Universal  Church, 
and  above  the  General  Council ;  so  that  no  judgment 
on  earth  can  be  superior  to  his.  If  the  objection  be 
urged  that  on  this  theory  the  Church  is  left  in  case  of 
trouble  without  a  remedy :  Bellarmine  answers,  No  ; 
there  is  the  divine  Protection.  We  may  pray  God  to 
convert  the  Pope,  or  to  take  him  away  before  he 
ruins  the  Church. 

It  is  certainly  one  of  the  ironies  of  history  that  the 
volume  of  Controversies,  in  which  these  theories  are 
contained,  was  placed  on  the  Index  by  Pope  Sixtus  V. 
as  deficient,  in  certain  respects,  in  the  regard  which  a 
Catholic  owed  to  the  Holy  Father.  In  the  curiously 
self- laudatory  pages  of  Bellarmine's  Autobiography 
there  still  survives  his  own  comment  on  this  act  of 
papal  authority.  He  informs  us  that  in  the  year  1591 
Gregory  XIV.  was  reflecting  what  he  ought  to  do 
with  the  Vulgate  edited  by  Sixtus  V.  There  were 
not  wanting  men  of  importance  who  held  that  the 
use  of  this  edition  ought  to  be  publicly  prohibited. 
But  Bellarmine  suggested,  in  the  Pope's  presence,  that 
correction  was  better  than  prohibition.  Thus  the 
honour  of  Pope  Sixtus  would  be  saved,  and  the  book 


76  CARDINAL   BELLARMINE          [CHAP. 

produced  in  an  emended  form.  He  advised,  therefore, 
a  republication  after  correction,  with  a  preface  stating 
that  in  the  first  edition  various  errors,  typographical 
and  other,  had,  through  haste,  crept  in.  Thus,  says 
Bellarmine,  he  did  Pope  Sixtus  good  in  return  for  evil. 
For  Sixtus  placed  Bellarmine's  work  on  Controversies 
upon  the  Index  of  Prohibited  Books,  because  it  rejected 
the  direct  dominion  of  the  Pope  over  the  whole  world. 
But,  when  Pope  Sixtus  was  dead,  the  Congregation  of 
Sacred  Rites  ordered  the  prohibition  of  Bellarmine's 
work  to  be  erased.1 

The  theories  of  Roman  theologians  made  great 
advances  in  the  sixteenth  century.  But  it  is  curious 
to  note  that  some  of  the  most  extreme  are  yet  con 
sidered  inadequate  and  defective  by  papal  writers  since 
the  Vatican  Decrees.  Torquemada  was  a  theologian 
devoted  to  the  enhancement  of  the  Apostolic  See.2 
For  him  the  plenitude  of  power  existed  in  the  Pope 
alone.  Was  it  not  written  there  shall  be  one  fold  and 
one  shepherd  ?  For  him  all  the  other  Apostles  derived 
their  jurisdiction  from  St  Peter.  And,  accordingly,  all 
Bishops  derive  their  jurisdiction  immediately  from  the 
Pope,  and  not  from  Christ.  But  notwithstanding  all 
this,  Torquemada  does  not  come  up  to  Ultramontane 
requirements.  The  German  infallibilist,  Schwane,  is 
not  satisfied  with  him  as  an  advocate  of  Papal 
Infallibility. 

"  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,"  says  Schwane,  "could  not 
be  passed  over  in  silence  by  a  papal  theologian  as 
eminent  as  Torquemada.  Nevertheless,  he  has  not 
realised  this  doctrine  in  all  its  purity."3 

1  Cf.  Dollinger  und  Reusch,  Die  Stlbstbiographie  des  Cardinals  Bellar- 
min,  p.  38,  and  notes  pp.  106-111. 

2  Ghilardi,  De  Plenitudine  Potestatis>  R.P.  p.  15. 

3  Hist.  Dogm.,  v.  p.  377. 


VIL]  TORQUEMADA  77 

Torquemada,  it  appears,  had  such  regard  for  papal 
freedom  of  will  that  he  could  not  deny  the  possibility 
of  its  erroneous  exercise,  even  in  the  discharge  of  the 
highest  papal  function.  But  while  admitting  that  the 
Pope  might  err  in  an  official  utterance  to  the  whole 
Church,  he  evaded  the  disastrous  consequence  to  the 
doctrine  of  Infallibility  by  affirming  that  such  a  misuse 
of  authority  would  constitute  the  Pope  a  heretic,  and, 
as  such,  ip so  facto,  Pope  no  longer.  Thus  he  secures  the 
Papal  Infallibility  by  maintaining  the  self-deposition  of 
any  Pope  who  teaches  erroneously. 

Schwane  remarks  acutely  enough  that  Torquemada's 
defence  of  Papal  Infallibility  virtually  places  the  supreme 
decision  not  in  the  Pope  but  in  a  General  Council  of  the 
Church.  For  it  manifestly  tends  to  ascribe  to  General 
Councils  the  right  to  revise  all  papal  dogmatic  decrees, 
in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they  are  heretical  or  not ; 
whether  they  proceed  from  one  who  is  really  Pope,  or 
from  one  who,  having  taught  erroneously,  is  not  Pope 
at  all. 

To  avoid  these  dangerous  tendencies  Torquemada, 
according  to  Schwane,  ought  to  have  denied  the 
possibility  of  the  Pope's  misuse  of  free  will  in  his 
ex  cathedra  pronouncements  ;  and  this  on  the  ground 
that  the  promises  of  Christ  cannot  fail  to  secure 
their  own  fulfilment,  and  must  accordingly  override  the 
metaphysical  possibility  of  mistake.  This  theory  of 
the  unconditional  character  of  Christ's  promises,  of  the 
almost  mechanical  necessity  of  their  realisation,  irre 
spective  of  the  human  will  and  human  compliance,  con 
stantly  meets  us  in  recent  Ultramontane  developments. 
Torquemada,  however,  knew  nothing  about  all  this,  or 
did  not  see  his  way  to  accept  such  theories.  There 
remain,  therefore,  grave  discrepancies,  according  to 
recent  Roman  writers,  between  this  papal  theologian 


78  CARDINAL   BELLARMINE    [CHAP.  vn. 

of  the  sixteenth  century — papal  though  indeed  he  was, 
— and  the  doctrine  as  it  shaped  itself  in  the  Vatican 
Decrees.  This  inadequacy  of  its  defenders,  as  judged 
by  the  standard  of  the  nineteenth  century  decision,  is 
a  not  unimportant  feature  in  the  doctrine's  development. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  SORBONNE 

DURING  the  seventeenth  century  Ultramontanism  found 
its  principal  obstruction  in  the  Church  of  France,  its 
principal  support  in  the  Jesuit  Society.  The  progress  of 
the  theory  roughly  corresponded  with  the  vicissitudes  of 
this  powerful  community.  The  League  againstthe  succes 
sion  in  France  exchanged  monarchical  and  Gallican  senti 
ments  for  Republican  and  Ultramontane.  The  theories 
of  political  independence  and  ecclesiastical  absolutism 
flourished  for  a  time.  Ultramontanism  even  controlled 
for  a  time  the  very  stronghold  of  Gallican  doctrine — the 
Sorbonne  itself.  But  this  cannot  be  rightly  regarded  as 
anything  more  than  a  transient  politically  affected  phase. 
The  Sorbonne  returned  to  its  ancient  loyalties.  It 
possessed  no  longer  the  same  authority  and  weight  as 
in  the  disastrous  days  of  the  great  Schism ;  but  it 
still  imposed  a  powerful  check  on  the  theories  of  the 
Ultramontane.  Its  influence  was  often  compromised, 
sometimes  counterbalanced,  by  the  Jesuit  Society  which, 
supported  by  an  Italian  Queen  Regent  during  the 
minority  of  Louis  XIII.,  was  enabled  to  effect  gradual 
encroachments  upon  the  ancient  University,  by  found 
ing  colleges  and,  ultimately,  granting  degrees,  even  in 
Paris  itself.1  Cardinal  Richelieu,  rebuilder  and  lavish 

1  Cf.  Jourdain,  Hist.  Univ.  Paris. 

79 


8o  THE   SORBONNE  [CHAP. 

patron  of  the  Sorbonne  though  he  was,  could,  never 
theless,  for  political  reasons,  encourage  the  Jesuit 
foundations ;  on  the  pretext  that  rival  educational 
establishments  sharpened  the  wits  of  both.  Thus  the 
first  half  of  the  century  witnessed  the  perpetual 
efforts  of  the  Sorbonne  to  strengthen  the  theological 
principles  of  the  French  Church,  and  to  exclude  the 
Ultramontane,  thwarted  or  weakened  by  the  influence 
of  the  Jesuit  exercised  through  the  Palace.  Jesuit 
confessors  directed  the  Royal  consciences,  and  made 
them  inaccessible  to  the  protests  of  the  Sorbonne. 
Again  and  again  theological  discussions  were  sus 
pended  or  suppressed  by  royal  authority,  at  the  secret 
instigation  of  this  powerful  community.  A  notable 
instance  is  found  in  the  experiences  of  the  celebrated 
Edmond  Richer,  the  learned  Syndic  of  the  Sorbonne, 
in  the  opening  years  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
Richer  had  been  in  early  youth  a  member  of  the 
League,  and,  as  such,  a  Republican  and  an  Ultramon 
tane  ;  but  his  matured  reflections  led  him  to  embrace 
the  historic  principles  of  the  Church  of  France,  and  to 
become  a  truceless  foe  of  the  Jesuits,  and  of  the  Ultra 
montane  opinions  with  which  they  were  at  the  time 
identified.  In  the  year  1606  he  distinguished  himself 
by  republishing  the  works  of  Chancellor  Gerson.  In 
1611  the  opposing  School  proposed  for  discussion  at 
a  Dominican  Convent  in  Paris,  before  an  illustrious 
assembly,  including  royal  personages,  the  Papal  Nuncio, 
and  Cardinal  du  Perron,  the  following  thesis: — (i)  That 
the  Roman  Pontiff  cannot  err  in  faith  and  morals; 
(2)  that  the  Council  is  in  no  case  superior  to  the 
Pope.1  Richer,  as  Syndic  of  the  Sorbonne,  protested. 
The  forbearance  of  the  Gallicans  was  sorely  tried  by 
such  contradictions  to  the  principles  of  their  fathers. 

1  Richerius,  Vindicia  Gall. 


vin.]  EDMOND   RICHER  81 

Ultimately  it  was  arranged  that  a  member  of  the 
Sorbonne,  Claudius  Bertin,  should  advocate  the  Gallican 
side.  Bertin  began  with  the  syllogism  :  Whatever  con 
tradicts  an  Ecumenical  Council  is  heresy.  Your  thesis — 
the  Council  is  in  no  case  superior  to  the  Pope — contra 
dicts  the  Ecumenical  Council  of  Constance,  therefore 
it  is  heresy.  At  this  the  Papal  Nuncio  grew  visibly 
indignant.  Bertin's  opponent  mildly  answered  :  "  Do  not 
say  this  assertion  is  heretical ;  it  is  enough  to  call  it 
misleading,  erroneous."  He  disclaimed  any  desire  to 
offend  the  Faculty  of  Paris.  He  only  desired  to 
ascertain  the  truth.  And  where  in  all  the  world  could 
this  question  be  discussed  if  not  within  this  most 
famous  University?  Here  Richer,  the  Syndic,  inter 
posed.  The  Sorbonne  had  always  held  the  Council 
of  Constance  as  Ecumenical,  and,  accordingly,  that  its 
decision  on  the  supremacy  of  the  Council  over  the 
Pope  was  a  matter  of  faith. 

The  discussion  was  resumed,but  ultimately,  at  Cardinal 
du  Perron's  request,  and  evidently  in  the  Ultramontane 
interests,  brought  to  an  abrupt  conclusion.  The  Parlia 
ment  of  Paris  followed  this  up  with  an  injunction  pro 
hibiting  the  Dominicans  from  disputes  on  the  Pope's 
Infallibility. 

The  Jesuits  were  so  enraged  by  Richer's  action  that 
from  that  day  forward  they  never  gave  him  peace. 
They  were  powerful  enough  to  secure  his  dismissal  from 
office.  But  he  was  a  person  more  easily  dismissed  than 
suppressed.  He  wrote  a  pamphlet  on  ecclesiastical  and 
political  power,  to  show  that  the  Church  is  a  monarchy, 
but  its  government  an  aristocracy  ;  for  neither  the  Pope 
nor  the  other  Bishops  can  decide  matters  of  importance 
without  the  guidance  of  a  Council.  The  infallible 
authority  in  matters  of  faith  rests,  he  taught,  with  the 
Universal  Council  as  representing  the  Universal  Church. 

F 


82  THE   SORBONNE  [CHAP. 

This  work  offended  Cardinal  du  Perron,  who  could  not 
see  how  proper  regard  for  monarchy  was  consistent 
with  the  view  that  aristocracy  was  naturally  the  highest 
form  of  government.1  Meanwhile  Richer  retired  con 
tentedly  into  studious  quietude,  where  he  composed  his 
great  work  on  the  Councils,  published  after  his  death. 
But  his  enemies  could  not  let  him  rest.  He  says  that 
he  could  not  venture  beyond  the  gates  of  the  College 
lest  the  satellites  of  the  Roman  authorities  should  fall 
upon  him.2  From  the  treatment  measured  out  to  him 
he  sees  that  the  Roman  Curia  is  resolved  to  obliterate 
the  ancient  doctrine  of  the  School  of  Paris,  and  to 
allow  no  man  to  speak  of  the  true  government  of  the 
Church,  or  the  independence  of  the  State,  without 
branding  him  as  a  heretic  or  schismatic.8  It  is  said  that 
Richer  was  forced  by  menaces  to  sign  a  recantation  of 
his  views  of  papal  power.  Whatever  he  signed,  the 
independent  statements  of  his  own  literary  Testament 
remain  to  show  his  real  convictions. 

"  I,  Edmond  Richer  ...  in  the  53  year  of  my  life 
.  .  .  seated  in  my  library,  sound  in  body  and  mind, 
write  this  latin  codicil  in  the  form  of  a  Testament."4 

He  then  appeals  to  his  defence  of  the  ancient  principles 
in  the  Disputations  of  1611;  and  recalls  the  persecu 
tions  he  has  undergone :  how  it  was  said  that  a  vow 
to  assassinate  him  would  be  most  acceptable  to  God, 
or  that  if  he  were  snared  and  sent  to  Rome  he  would 
soon  find  out  whether  the  Pope  possessed  the  temporal 
sword.5  Men  do  not  realise,  says  Richer,  how  grievously 
these  theories  compromise  the  Apostolic  See.  For  more 

1  Letter  to  Casaubon,  Les  Ambassades  et  Negotiations  >  p.  694, 

2  Richer's  Testament^  p.  3. 

3  Richerius,  Vindicia  Doctrines  Ma/orum,  p.  2. 

4  Ibid.  p.  II.  6  Ibid.  p.  14. 


viii.]    VERON  ON  THE  RULE  OF  FAITH      83 

than  twenty  years  he  has  been  beset  by  enemies.  And 
yet  they  are  the  true  principles  of  Church  government, 
transmitted  by  the  Fathers,  restored  in  the  Councils 
of  Constance  and  Basle,  which  are  being  attacked 
through  him.1  The  example  of  Richer  is  intended  as 
a  warning  to  frighten  the  theologians  of  Paris  from 
maintaining  the  doctrine  of  their  fathers.  Accord 
ingly  whatever  his  malicious  opponents  may  contrive 
at  this  day,  or  may  hereafter  contrive  against  him, 
he  prays  that  he  may  have  the  grace  to  forgive 
and  the  fortitude  to  resist.  In  this  unhappy  age  in 
which  truth  is  diminished  among  the  children  of 
men  he  registers  his  emphatic  rejection  of  the  theory 
that  the  Pope  is  the  absolute  infallible  ruler  of  the 
Church.2 

Undoubtedly  this  was  the  faith  in  which  Richer  died.3 
Another  instance  of  the  teaching  of  the  French 
Church  occurs  in  a  book  by  Francis  Veron,  entitled 
The  Rule  of  Faith,  or  a  separation  of  those  matters 
which  are  of  Catholic  faith  from  those  that  are  not. 
Veron  was  Doctor  of  Theology  in  Paris,  and  died 
in  1646.*  He  quotes  the  doctrine  of  Trent  and 
Florence.  Trent  committed  him  to  the  recognition  of 
the  Roman  Church  as  the  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all 
Churches  ;  to  the  belief  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  Peter's 
successor  and  Vicar  of  Christ ;  and  to  the  duty  of 
obedience  to  his  commands.  The  Council  of  Florence 
described  the  Pope  as  Head  of  the  whole  Church,  and  as 
Father  and  Teacher  of  all  Christians  ;  and  affirmed  him 
to  possess  a  plenary  power,  such  as  is  recognised  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Ecumenical  Councils,  and  in  the  canons. 
So  much,  then,  Veron  acknowledges  as  of  faith.  But 

1  Richerius,  Vindicia  Doctrines  Majorum^  p.  14. 

2  Ibid.  16-17.  8  A.D.  1629, 
4  Ed.  Sebastian  Brunner,  1857,  p.  145. 


84  THE   SORBONNE  [CHAP.  vm. 

nothing  beyond  this  is  of  faith,  because  the  Church  has 
asserted  nothing  more.  He  lays  particular  stress  on 
the  language  of  Florence,  because  Greek  and  Latin 
were  therein  met  in  conclave. 

"  Accordingly,"  Veron's  conclusion  is  that,  "  it  is  not 
of  faith  that  the  Roman  Pontiff,  in  his  teaching,  whether 
in  a  particular  Council,  or  in  a  Provincial  Synod,  even 
if  he  address  the  Universal  Church,  or  when,  as  they 
say,  he  speaks  ex  cathedra,  supposing  him  to  teach 
apart  from  a  Universal  Council,  is  the  supreme  judge 
of  controversies,  or  is  infallible ;  nor  that  what  is  so 
defined  is  of  faith,  unless  the  conviction  of  the  Universal 
Church  otherwise  declare  it."  * 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  Trent  it  is  the  Church 
alone  whose  function  it  is  to  determine  the  true  mean 
ing  and  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture.  No  theologian 
hitherto,  says  Veron,  not  even  Bellarmine  himself,  has 
ventured  to  assert  that  the  Pope's  Infallibility  is  of  faith.2 
Bellarmine  admits  that  the  theory  that  the  Pope,  if  he 
venture  to  define  even  as  Pope  apart  from  a  General 
Council,  may  fall  into  heresy,  was  held  by  no  less  a 
personage  than  the  theologian  who  afterwards  became 
Pope  Hadrian  VI.3  Bellarmine  admits  also  that  this 
theory  is  not  heretical,  for  its  advocates  are  tolerated 
by  the  Church.  If  Bellarmine,  nevertheless,  labels  this 
same  theory  proximate  to  heresy,  this  is  his  individual 
view  and  in  Veron's  judgment  unjustifiable.  As  to 
further  discussion,  Veron  deprecates  it  He  writes  as 
a  Catholic  teacher  and  not  in  a  scholastic  or  specula 
tive  way. 

"  Since  the  Catholic  Church  teaches  nothing  concern 
ing  this  matter,  [of  Papal  Infallibility]  neither  need  I."4 
What  is  true  is  that  whatever  issues  from  so  high  an 
authority  is-  to  be  received  with  great  regard. 

1  Veron.  Regula  Fidci.     Ed.  Sebastian  Br aimer.  1857,  p.  146. 

2  Ibid.  p.  147.  3  Ibid,  p.  147.  4  Ibid.  p.  148. 


CHAPTER   IX 

BOSSUET 

THE  struggle  between  the  Sorbonne  and  the  Jesuits  was 
no  mere  struggle  between  a  theological  school  and  a 
religious  community.  The  universities  held,  in  the 
theological  controversies  of  those  days,  a  position  with 
which  nothing  modern  exactly  corresponds.  They  were 
exponents  of  the  religious  conceptions  of  the  Church. 
They  derived  from  it  their  principles  and  returned  to 
it  their  inferences  and  suggestions.  The  Sorbonne 
was  not  an  isolated  school  of  independent  theological 
speculators.  It  represented,  generally  speaking,  the 
mind  of  the  Church  in  France.  Of  course  universities 
might  utter  conflicting  decisions.  But  it  is  peculiarly 
true  of  the  Sorbonne  that  it  represented  the  indigenous 
as  opposed  to  the  imported  theology  of  France.  While 
the  Ultramontane  was  Italian  in  origin,  a  foreign 
product,  like  the  Jesuit,  and  under  foreign  control,  the 
Sorbonne  was  typical  of  the  traditions  of  the  Church 
within  the  Kingdom.  Its  sentiments  were  endorsed  by 
the  Bishops.  Political  incidents  occasioned  the  famous 
collective  expression  of  the  traditional  convictions  of 
the  French  Church  in  the  Assembly  of  Clergy  in  1682. 
That  Assembly  arose  out  of  an  unexpected  collision 
between  Louis  XIV.  and  Pope  Innocent  XL,  in  a 
question  of  the  relation  between  the  Church  and  the 

85 


86  BOSSUET  [CHAP. 

State.  The  King  already  possessed  over  a  portion  of 
France  the  power,  fully  recognised  at  Rome,  to  appoint 
to  vacant  benefices  and  to  be  recipient  of  the  revenues 
during  a  vacancy.  But  he  now  sought  to  make  this 
privilege  co-extensive  with  the  realm.  The  Bishops 
acquiesced  with  the  exception  of  two  —  Pavilion  of 
Aleth,  and  Caulet  of  Pamiers.  Pope  Innocent  took 
their  view,  and  upheld  them  against  their  respective 
Metropolitans.  Thereupon  Louis  XIV.  summoned  an 
Assembly  of  Bishops  and  of  selected  Priests  who, 
without  hesitation,  yielded  to  the  King's  desires.  The 
personage  selected  to  preach  the  sermon  at  the  open 
ing  of  this  Assembly  was  Bossuet,  incomparably  the 
most  important  in  this  stage  of  French  theological 
thought. 

The  selection  testifies  to  the  general  conviction. 
Bossuet  was  highly  valued  alike  by  the  King  and  by 
the  Bishops.  But  he  had  a  most  delicate  and  difficult 
task  before  him.  He  must  preach  in  a  manner,  if  that 
were  possible,  to  conciliate  the  temporal  power,  the 
episcopal  power,  and  the  papal  power  at  Rome.  He 
must  be  true  to  the  traditional  convictions  of  the 
Gallican  Church,  and  yet  not  alienate  the  Gallicans 
from  the  Papacy,  nor,  if  possible,  offend  the  Pope.  He 
must  balance  the  temporal  and  spiritual  power  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  satisfy  Innocent  without  alienating  the 
King.  And  never  did  Bossuet  exhibit  greater  courage 
and  dexterity.1  In  his  famous  sermon,  which  was  on 
Unity,  he  described  the  primacy  of  St  Peter,  and  the 
divine  selection  of  the  one  to  be  the  centre  of  Unity. 
He  set  the  occupants  of  the  Roman  See  very  high, 
but  he  did  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  occasions  when 
one  or  two  of  the  Popes  had  not  sustained  with 
sufficient  constancy,  or  had  inadequately  explained  the 

1  Bossuet,  t.  xi.  p.  588. 


ix.]  SERMON   ON   UNITY  87 

doctrines  of  the  Faith.1  He  even  mentioned  the  one 
whom  a  Universal  Council  had  condemned.  This  would 
be  painful  to  the  School  of  Infallibility,  but  it  was  the 
accepted  doctrine  of  Catholic  France.  But  Bossuet's 
magnificent  conception  of  twelve  centuries  of  unity, 
and  his  strenuous  appeal  to  do  nothing  by  which  that 
record  might  be  broken,  or  that  unity  endangered, 
must  have  tended  greatly  to  conciliate  and  set  the  tone 
for  the  subsequent  discussions.  So  far  as  to  his  first 
task — the  papal  power. 

He  was  no  less  strong  on  the  power  of  the  Episcopate. 
The  jurisdiction  bestowed  on  Peter  was  also  bestowed 
by  Christ  upon  the  Twelve.2  He  said  the  same  thing 
to  all  the  Apostles.3  Their  Commission  was  also 
immediate,  direct  from  Christ.  "One  cannot  imagine 
a  power  better  established  nor  a  mission  more 
immediate."  "  It  was  manifestly  the  intention  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  bestow  primarily  upon  one  that  which 
He  ultimately  willed  to  bestow  upon  many." 4  The 
relation  of  the  Pope  to  the  Episcopate  is  not  that  he 
is  lord  over  the  Bishops,  but  one  of  their  number,  as 
says  St  Bernard.6  The  power  of  the  Holy  See  has 
nothing  above  it,  says  Bossuet,  except  the  entire  Catholic 
Church.6  In  the  calamitous  times  when  the  Pope  claimed 
the  allegiance  of  Christendom,  it  was  the  Episcopate, 
urged  the  preacher,  which  terminated  the  Schism  and 
restored  the  Pope.  They  must  firmly  maintain  these 
principles  which  the  Gallican  Church  had  found  in  the 
traditions  of  the  Universal  Church ;  and  which  the 
French  Universities,  particularly  that  of  Paris,  had 
taught  with  the  full  knowledge  of  the  Roman  See. 

On  the  relation  of  the  temporal  to  the  spiritual  power 
Bossuet  said : — 

1  Bossuet,  t.  xi.  p.  596.     2  Ibid.  p.  599.     3  Ibid.  p.  600. 
4  Ibid.  p.  600.  5  Ibid.  p.  618.    6  Ibid.  p.  620. 


88  BOSSUET  [CHAP 

"Woe  to  the  Church  when  these  two  jurisdictions 
begin  to  regard  each  other  with  a  jealous  eye.1 
Ministers  of  the  Church  and  ministers  of  kings  are 
both  alike  ministers  of  the  King  of  kings,  although 
diversely  established.  Why  do  they  not  remember  that 
these  functions  are  united,  that  to  serve  God  is  to  serve 
the  State,  and  to  serve  the  State  is  to  serve  God  ?  But 
authority  is  blind  ;  authority  ever  aims  at  exalting  itself, 
at  extending  itself;  authority  considers  itself  degraded 
when  reminded  of  its  limitations." 

The  Assembly  ordered  this  sermon  to  be  printed. 
The  King  was  satisfied  with  it.  Bossuet  had  conciliated 
two  of  the  three  departments,  the  Crown  and  the 
Episcopate.  It  remained  to  be  seen  how  the  sermon 
would  be  regarded  at  Rome.  Bossuet  sent  the  sermon 
with  an  explanatory  letter  to  a  friendly  Cardinal. 

"  I  must  tell  your  Eminence,"  he  wrote,  "  that  I  was 
forced  to  speak  of  the  liberties  of  the  Gallican  Church. 
You  will  at  once  realise  what  that  involved.  I  set 
before  myself  two  things — the  one,  to  do  this  without 
derogating  from  the  true  dignity  of  the  Holy  See ;  the 
other,  to  explain  the  Gallican  principles  as  the  Bishops 
understood  them,  and  not  as  they  are  understood  by 
the  magistrates."2  .  .  . 

"  The  sensitive  ears  of  Romans  ought  to  be  respected. 
And  I  have  done  so  most  readily.  Three  points  might 
wound  them,  namely  —  the  temporal  independence  of 
the  royal  power ;  episcopal  jurisdiction  received  imme 
diately  from  Jesus  Christ ;  and  the  authority  of  the 
Councils. 

"  You  are  well  aware  that  in  France  we  speak  plainly 
on  these  matters,  and  I  have  endeavoured  so  to  speak 
that,  without  wronging  the  doctrine  of  the  Gallican 
Church,  I  might  at  the  same  time  avoid  offending 

1  Bossuet,  t,  xi.  p.  623.  2  Ibid.  p.  291. 


ix.]        THE   FOUR   ARTICLES   OF  1682         89 

the  majesty  of  Rome.  More  than  this  cannot  be 
expected  of  a  Galilean  Bishop  whom  circumstances 
compel  to  deal  with  points  like  these."1 

Bossuet's  sermon,  says  his  biographer,  was  received  at 
Rome  with  approval,  real  or  affected.2  The  Assembly, 
however,  was  less  successful.  Subservient  to  the  will  of 
the  temporal  power,  they  made  proposals  which  Rome 
rejected.  But  this  antagonism  between  the  Gallican 
Church  and  Rome  led  the  Assembly  to  its  reassertion 
of  Gallican  principles,  in  the  four  famous  Articles  of 
1682.  To  Bossuet  was  ultimately  entrusted  the  delicate 
task  of  formulating  the  Gallican  belief  as  to  the  limits  of 
the  papal  power.  Bossuet,  representing  the  Church  of 
France,  denied  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility.  He 
believed  that  permanence  in  the  truth  was  promised  to 
the  Roman  See  as  distinguished  from  its  temporary 
occupant.  He  maintained  that  although  the  Pope  him 
self  might  be  in  error,  yet  that  error  would  not  be 
inherent  in  the  Roman  See,  and  would  be  corrected  by 
the  Church  in  Council.  Above  the  Pope  was  the 
Universal  Church.  If  the  Roman  See  were  in  error 
on  the  faith,  it  would  be  brought  back  to  the  truth  by 
the  other  Churches.  Rome  would  quickly  perceive 
its  error,  and  would  never  fall  into  heresy  or  schism. 
But  he  denied  that  Infallibility  could  be  attributed 
to  the  occupant  of  the  Roman  See.  This  view  was 
the  traditional  conviction  of  the  Church  of  France. 
Accordingly,  when  the  Assembly  formulated  its  Declara 
tion  on  the  limits  of  papal  power,  it  expressed  itself  by 
Bossuet's  aid  in  the  four  Articles  to  the  following  effect : — 

I.  That  the  Pope  could  not  release  subjects  from 
obedience  to  the  temporal  power.3 

1  Works,  vol.  xi.  p.  292. 

2  Cardinal  Bausset,  Hist,  de  Bossuet,  p.  136. 
J  Jervis,  Hist.  Ch.  France,  ii.  p.  50. 


90  BOSSUET  [CHAP. 

2.  That  the  Decrees  of  Constance  on  the  supreme 
authority    of    the    Council    remain    in    full    force    in 
Christendom. 

3.  That  the  independence  of  the  Church  of  France 
must  be  maintained. 

4.  That  the  decisions  of  the  Pope  are  not  infallible. 

"The  Pope  has  the  principal  place  in  deciding 
questions  of  faith,  and  his  decrees  extend  to  every 
Church  and  all  Churches  ;  but,  nevertheless,  his  judg 
ment  is  not  irreversible,  until  confirmed  by  the  consent 
of  the  Church" 

Here,  then,  is  the  essential  point  on  the  subject  of 
Infallibility.  It  resides  in  the  Universal  Church,  and 
not  in  the  occupant  of  a  particular  See.  As  to  this 
doctrine,  says  an  able  French  historian,  there  was  no  real 
diversity  of  opinion  in  France.  There  existed  indeed 
an  Ultramontane  party  which,  countenanced  by  certain 
powerful  protectors,  possessed  a  varying  influence ; l 
but  it  never  won  the  consent  of  the  clergy  in  France, 
which  at  all  times  showed  the  strongest  antipathy  to 
Ultramontane  ideas.  The  Declaration  was  signed  by 
thirty-four  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the  Church  of 
France.  It  experienced,  says  Bossuet's  biographer, 
himself  a  Cardinal  of  the  Roman  Church,  no  opposi 
tion  in  the  Kingdom.2  It  did  but  reaffirm  a  doctrine 
which  had  been  at  all  times  dear  to  the  University 
and  theological  Faculty  of  Paris. 

But  if  this  Declaration  of  the  Assembly  was  congenial 
throughout  France  it  was  otherwise  in  Rome.  "The 
Pope  appointed  a  congregation  to  frame  a  censure  of 
the  propositions."3  Italian  writers  composed  attacks 
upon  them.  One  in  particular  was  dedicated  to 

1  Guettee,  xL  p.  85.  *  Baussct,  ii.  p.  iS£. 

*  Jerris,  Galluan  Ch.  ii  p.  52. 


ix.]     LETTERS  ON  ULTRAMONTANISM      91 

Innocent  XL,  "  Lord  of  Rome  and  of  the  World,  only 
Keeper  of  the  Keys  of  Heaven  and  Earth  and  Paradise, 
Infallible  Oracle  of  the  Faith."  This  provoked  the 
comment  of  Arnauld : 

"  I  pity  the  Holy  See  for  possessing  such  defenders. 
It  is  a  terrible  judgment  of  God  upon  the  Church  if 
Rome  adopts  such  methods  of  defence  against  the 
Bishops  of  France."1 

[  Bossuefs   correspondents  in   Rome  sent  him  most 
unfavourable  reports  of  the  probable  action  of  the  Pope, 
Bossnet  expressed  himself  very  freely  on  the  situation 
in  a  letter  to  the  Monastery  of  La  Trappe  : — 

"  The  affairs  of  the  Church  are  in  an  evil  plight  The 
Pope  openly  threatens  us  with  denunciations  and  even 
with  new  Decrees.  Well-intentioned  mediocrity  in 

high  places  is  a  grave  misfortune."2 

"  Your  letter/1  wrote  Bossnet  to  another  correspondent, 
"preser.:  .  :.:  :r.e  creitr.t  s:i:e  ::"  the  ;\:rr.  =  r. 

Court  which  positively  alarms  me.  Does  Bellarmine 
really  hold  the  chief  place  there  ?  Has  he  become  their 
tradition  ?  Where  are  we  if  this  is  the  case,  and  if  the 
Pope  is  disposed  to  condemn  whatever  that  author 
condemns  ?  Hitherto  they  have  never  ventured  to  do 
it  They  have  never  made  this  attack  on  the  Council 
of  Constance,  nor  on  the  Popes  who  have  approved  it. 
What  shall  we  answer  heretics  when  they  confront  us 
with  this  Council  and  its  decrees,  repeated  at  Basle  with 
the  express  approval  of  Eugenics  IV.,  and  with  all  die 
other  confirmatory  acts  of  Rome  ?  If  Eugenius  IV.  did 
well  in  his  authentic  approval  of  these  decrees,  how 
can  people  attack  them?  And  if  he  did  wrong,  what 
becomes,  men  will  ask,  of  his  Infallibility?  Shall  we 
have  to  dude  these  difficulties  and  escape  the  authority 
of  these  Decrees,  and  of  so  many  others  both  ancient 

1  Gucttee,  xi.  p.  87 . 

*  Basnet,  Letter  no,  L  xzri.  PL  313. 


92  BOSSUET  [CHAP. 

and  modern,  by  the  scholastic  distinctions  and  miserable 
subtleties  of  Bellarmine  ?  Must  we  assert  with  him  and 
with  Baronius  that  the  Acts  of  the  Sixth  Council  and 
the  Letters  of  St  Leo  have  been  falsified?  Will  the 
Church,  which  has  hitherto  silenced  heresy  with  solid 
reasons,  have  no  better  defence  than  these  pitiful  pre 
varications  ?  May  God  preserve  us  from  it." 1 

Happily,  says  Cardinal  Bausset,  feeling  at  Rome 
quieted  down ;  and  Innocent  XI.  was  "  providentially 
diverted  from  censuring  the  doctrine  of  France.  He 
restricted  himself  to  rewarding,  with  more  generosity 
than  judgment,  the  numerous  writers  who  attacked  the 
Assembly  of  1682." 2  Not  venturing  to  condemn  the 
four  Articles,  he  showed  his  displeasure  by  refusing 
Bulls  to  its  members  if  nominated  to  Bishoprics. 
Louis  XIV.  retaliated  by  refusing  to  allow  any  Bishop 
to  accept  the  papal  Approval.  This  lasted  through  the 
pontificates  of  Innocent  XI.  and  Alexander  VIII. 
Innocent  XII.,  says  Cardinal  Bausset,  demanded  and 
obtained  letters  of  apology  from  the  former  deputies  of 
the  Assembly.  They  expressed  their  concern  at  his 
resentment,  but  in  vague  and  general  terms  capable  of 
various  interpretations,  and  without  any  suggestion  of 
abandoning  their  traditional  convictions. 

But  when  Clement  XL  attempted,  on  the  strength 
of  these  letters,  to  induce  Louis  XIV.  to  sup 
press  the  Assembly's  propositions,  Louis  replied  that 
Innocent  XII.  understood  that  his  wisdom  lay  in  not 
attacking  principles  regarded  in  France  as  fundamental 
and  primitive,  and  held  unaltered  by  the  French  Church 
over  many  centuries.  His  Holiness,  said  the  King,  is 
too  enlightened  to  declare  heretical  what  the  Church 

1  Bossuet's  letter  to  M.  Dirois. 

2  Bausset,  Hist,  de  Bossuet^  ii.  p.  197. 


ix.]      DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECLARATION    93 

of  France  maintains.  "  Innocent  XII.  did  not  ask  me 
to  abandon  them,"  added  Louis.  "  He  knew  that  such 
a  demand  would  be  useless."  And  there  the  matter 
stayed.  Clement  XI.  acquiesced,  like  his  predecessors, 
in  the  independence  of  the  Church  in  France  from 
Ultramontane  opinions. 

The  attack  on  the  principles  of  the  Church  of  France 
led  Bossuet  to  write  his  greatest  work — The  Defence 
of  the  Declaration)-  Since  the  chief  responsibility  for 
producing  the  Declaration  had  fallen  upon  him,  it 
became  naturally  his  duty  to  defend  it.  From  the 
year  of  the  Assembly  onward  to  the  end  of  his  life, 
some  twenty  years,  he  devoted  an  immensity  of  labour 
to  its  compilation.  More  than  once  proposals  were 
made  to  publish,  but  reasons  of  State  made  it  prudent 
not  to  offend  the  Pope,  and  the  book  never  appeared 
during  Bossuet's  life.  The  MS.  was  left  to  Louis  XIV., 
and  in  1745  was  printed.  It  is  impossible  in  a  limited 
space  to  give  an  adequate  idea  of  the  character  of  this 
monumental  work.  It  is  written  in  terse  and  vigorous 
Latin.  It  occupies  two  large  8vo.  volumes  of  some  750 
pages  each.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  most  powerful 
refutation  of  Papal  Infallibility  ever  published  came 
from  the  pen  of  the  most  distinguished  Bishop  of  the 
Church  in  France  ;  from  one  who  lived  and  died  in 
communion  with  the  Roman  See.  Authority  never 
passed  a  censure  on  this  work.  Bossuet's  Defence 
powerfully  influenced  belief  in  the  Church  in  France. 
Many  instances  can  be  produced  to  show  that  it  guided 
and  taught  the  teachers  of  that  Church  down  to  the 
time  of  the  Vatican  Council  itself.  These  volumes  have 
proved  the  storehouse  whence  the  most  telling  opposi 
tion  to  Ultramontanism  has  been  derived. 

Now  the  special  interest  is  that  this  Defence  of  the 

1  Cf.  Jervis,  Gallican  Ch.  ii.  p.  56. 


94  BOSSUET  [CHAP. 

Gallican  Declaration  was  never   condemned  at  Rome. 
Here  is  what  Pope  Benedict  XIV.,  1748,  said  about  it : — 

"  In  the  time  of  our  immediate  predecessor,  Clement 
XII.,  it  was  seriously  debated  whether  this  work  ought 
not  to  be  proscribed ;  but  it  was  finally  determined 
that  no  censure  should  be  passed  upon  it.  This  decision 
was  arrived  at,  not  only  out  of  regard  for  the  author's 
memory,  who  in  other  respects  so  worthily  served  the 
cause  of  religion,  but  also  out  of  just  apprehension  of 
provoking  fresh  dissertations  and  renewing  the  dispute." * 

A  striking  testimony  to  the  powerful  effect  of  Bossuet's 
treatise  when  it  first  appeared  is  that  of  his  learned 
opponent,  Cardinal  Orsi : — 

"  I  have  heard,  not  only  at  Rome,  but  also  in  many 
other  places,  a  great  many  persons,  distinguished  alike 
for  their  character,  learning,  and  ability,  declare,  after 
careful  study  of  this  work  of  Bossuet,  that  the  Roman 
theologians  had  better  abandon  the  defence  of  so 
hopeless  a  cause ;  that  it  would  be  nobler  if  they  would 
confess  it  frankly,  since  they  do  not  see  what  answer  they 
can  make  with  any  prospect  of  success  to  the  historical 
evidence  which  Bossuet  has  collected." 2 

Bossuet's  personal  conviction  on  Infallibility  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  fourth  Article  of  the  Assembly's  Declara 
tion.  He  held  that  it  requires  the  consent  of  the  Church 
to  make  a  papal  decision  on  faith  unalterable.  He 
declared  that  whatever  men  may  assert  in  theory,  when 
it  comes  to  practice,  the  final  decision  will  inevitably 
depend  on  the  consent  of  the  Universal  Church.  This, 
says  Cardinal  Bausset,  is  exactly  what  occurs  whenever 
the  Ultramontanes  are  forced  within  their  last  entrench 
ments.  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  ends  by  being  only 
that  of  the  Church.3 

1  Jervis,  Church  of  France,  ii.  p.  59. 

2  Bausset,  ii.  p.  427.     Orsi,  De  irref.  R.  P.  jud.     Preface  t.  i.  d. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  p.  197. 


ix.]     DEFENCE  OF  THE  DECLARATION     95 

Bossuet  attached  very  little  importance  to  objections 
about  the  practical  inconvenience  of  Papal  Fallibility.1 
To  his  mind  it  was  perfectly  futile  to  argue  that,  if 
we  must  wait  for  the  consent  of  the  Church  to  a 
pontifical  decree,  we  should  be  leaving  the  minds 
of  the  faithful  in  suspense.  He  considers  that  the 
true  remedy  is  not  to  extend  the  papal  power,  but  to 
exercise  more  faith  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Catholic 
Church.  It  is  no  disparagement  to  the  Pope  if  the 
Church  be  placed  above  him.2 

Similarly,  the  a  priori  argument  that  submission  of 
the  intellect  must  be  due  when  the  Pope  defines  a 
doctrine,  otherwise  faith  would  vacillate  ;  and  that  such 
submissions  can  only  be  justified  when  the  authority 
cannot  err ;  leaves  Bossuet  unmoved,  except  to  protest 
against  the  underlying  assumption  that  unqualified 
submission  is  due. 

Bossuet's  survey  of  history  from  the  Apostolic  Age  to 
his  awn  time,  Scripture,  Fathers,  Councils,  Theologians, 
confirmed  him  in  the  truth  of  the  principles  of  the 
Church  in  France.  The  ultimate  and  therefore  irre 
versible  decision  in  faith  depended  on  the  Collective 
Episcopate,  and  on  that  only ;  as  voicing  the  belief  of 
the  Universal  Church. 

"What  benefit  to  the  Church,"  he  exclaims  in  a 
striking  passage,  "  can  exist  in  that  doubtful  authority, 
which  the  Church  has  not  yet  affirmed,  of  a  Pope's  ex 
cathedra  decisions?  We  live  in  the  seventeenth  century 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  not  yet  are  orthodox  and 
saintly  men  agreed  about  that  Infallibility.  To  say 
nothing  of  the  Councils  of  Constance  and  of  Basle, 
saintly  and  learned  men  are  opposed  to  it.  And  if 
many  private  individuals  clamour  greatly,  and  pour 
forth  imprudent  censures  against  them,  yet  neither  the 
Catholic  Church  nor  Rome  itself  passes  any  condemna- 

1  Bossuet,  i.  p.  112.  2  Ibid.  i.  p.  113. 


96  BOSSUET  [CHAP. 

tion  upon  them.  Three  hundred  years  we  have  con 
troverted  it  with  impunity.  Has  the  Church  waited  for 
peace  and  security  down  to  this  our  age,  until  the 
seventeenth  century  is  almost  at  an  end  ?  Plainly, 
then,  the  security  of  pious  souls  must  rest  in  the 
consent  of  the  Universal  Church.  It  cannot  be  that 
they  should  acquiesce  in  the  doubtful  Infallibility  of 
the  Roman  Pontiff.  ...  A  doubtful  Infallibility  is  not 
that  Infallibility  which  Christ  bestowed.  If  He  had 
granted  it  at  all  He  would  have  revealed  it  to  His 
Church  from  the  very  beginning.  He  would  not  have 
left  it  doubtful,  inadequately  revealed,  nor  useless  for 
want  of  an  indisputable  tradition." l 

What  made  the  Pope's  advocacy  of  Ultramontane 
ideas  additionally  distressing  to  Bossuet  and  others 
was  that  in  their  presentation  of  Catholic  Truth  to 
Protestants  no  mention  whatever  had  been  made  of 
Papal  Infallibility  as  pertaining  in  any  way  to  Catholic 
principles.  In  Bossuet's  famous  Exposition  de  la  Doctrine 
Catkolique,  written  expressly  to  explain  the  fundamental 
Catholic  Dogmas  to  men  of  other  Communions,  he 
had  spoken  of  "  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  and  of 
the  Episcopate,"  thus  acknowledging  a  double  power.2 
He  said  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  speak  of  matters 
disputed  in  the  theological  schools  because  they  formed 
no  part  in  the  Catholic  Faith.  And  this  Exposition 
was  published  with  papal  approbation.3  It  had  been 
singularly  effective  in  commending  the  Roman  Church 
to  its  opponents,  and  in  gaining  their  submission.  But 
if  it  was  known  that  the  Pope  resented  these  principles, 
still  more,  if  he  openly  ventured  to  condemn  them  as 
errors  approximate  to  heresy,  Protestant  converts  could 
hardly  fail  to  retort :  We  submitted  to  the  Church  on 
the  distinct  assertion  that  no  Catholic  was  required  to 

1  Bossuet,  t.  xxi.  p.  129  2  Ibid.  vol.  xiii.  pp.  103,  104. 

3  Ibid.  p.  104. 


IX.] 


OTHER   BISHOPS   IN   FRANCE 


97 


believe  either  in  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  or  in  his 
right  to  depose  kings.1  In  that  case  we  have  been 
misguided  and  deceived.  It  is,  exclaimed  thoughtful 
French  Catholics  looking  across  to  England,  precisely 
these  doctrines  which  are  the  principal  cause  of  the 
persecution  of  Catholics  there.2 

The  publication  of  Bossuet's  great  work  in  1745 
may  have  given  considerable  strength  to  Catholicism 
in  France  of  an  Anti-Roman  type ;  but  other  treatises 
show  that  the  clergy  of  France  were  being  persistently 
trained  in  similar  ideas.  The  theological  principles 
inculcated  with  the  authority  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Lyons  in  1784  in  the  seminaries  of  his  diocese  include 
the  following  propositions :  The  Roman  Pontiff  even 
when  speaking  ex  cathedra,  in  matters  of  faith  and 
morals,  can  be  deceived ;  Bishops  possess  jurisdiction 
direct  from  Christ  and  not  from  the  Roman  Pontiff; 
the  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  inferior  to  that 
of  a  General  Council.  The  principles  taught  at  the 
same  period  in  the  diocese  of  Rouen  were  similar.8 

1  Guettee,  Histoire  dc  V Eglisc  de  France^  xi.  p.  94. 

2  Ibid.  p.  95. 

3  Sicard,  L'Ancien  Clergt  de  France,  i.  p.  425,  n. 


CHAPTER   X 

OPPOSITION   AMONG  ROMAN   CATHOLICS  IN   ENGLAND 

THE  struggle  of  Catholic  versus  Ultramontane  in  the 
Roman  Communion  in  England  finds  forcible  expres 
sion  in  the  famous  letter  of  the  distinguished  Roman 
Catholic  layman,  Sir  John  Throgmorton,  in  1790: — 

"  He  laid  stress,"  says  a  Roman  writer,  "  on  the  fact 
that  ever  since  the  day  of  Pius  V.'s  excommunication 
of  Elizabeth,  '  the  English  Catholics  have  been  divided 
into  two  parties.  The  "  Papistic "  party,  on  the  one 
hand,  upheld  and  maintained  all  the  pretensions  of  the 
Court  of  Rome,  and  were  supported  by  all  the  influence 
of  that  Court,  sometimes  by  briefs  from  the  Popes 
themselves.  .  .  .  The  other  party  consisted  and  still 
consists  of  the  descendants  of  the  old  Catholic  families, 
and  a  respectable  portion  of  the  clergy  who,  true  to  the 
religion  of  their  ancestors,  have  uniformly  .  .  .  protested 
against  the  usurped  authority  of  the  Court  of  Rome.' 
He  denied  that  the  original  cause  of  the  difference — 
the  question  whether  or  no  the  Pope  had  the  power 
to  depose  sovereigns — represented  adequately  the  dis 
tinction  between  the  two  parties.  The  deposing  power 
was  no  longer  maintained  by  any  one ;  but  the 
*  Papistic '  party  still  remained,  and  taught  the  Infalli 
bility  of  the  Pope  and  urged  all  his  claims.  He  called 
on  English  Catholics  to  dissociate  themselves  from  this 
party  and  its  teaching." 1 

1  Quoted  in  W.  Ward's  Life  of  Wiseman^  i.  p.  513. 

98 


CHAP.X.]     THROGMORTON'S   APPEAL  99 

The  London  Romanist  clergy  selected  a  Bishop  of 
Catholic  as  opposed  to  Ultramontane  convictions. 
Rome  refused,  however,  to  accept  their  selection,  and 
the  English  Catholics  submitted.  Here  is  an  illustration 
of  the  method  by  which  the  older  principles  were  to  be 
suppressed.1  Nevertheless  the  older  principles  remained. 
The  Roman  body  in  England  continued  to  maintain  its 
anti-Roman  ideas.  This  appears  incontestably  in  their 
appeal  to  Parliament  for  removal  of  their  political  dis 
abilities,  under  which  they  had  suffered  terribly  since 
the  days  of  Elizabeth.  These  political  disabilities  were 
the  Nemesis  of  the  unfortunate  action  of  the  Papacy 
against  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  of  the  theories  on  the 
relation  between  spiritual  and  temporal  power  advocated 
by  Roman  writers  of  that  period.  The  penal  laws 
against  the  Roman  Communion  in  England  were  the 
product  of  fear,  being  in  design  defensive  against  political 
results  of  Roman  teaching.  However,  in  course  of  time, 
none  too  soon,  nobler  and  juster  counsels  began  to  pre 
vail,  and  the  time  approached  when  all  the  impartial 
desired  the  removal  of  restrictions  and  penalties  which 
were  formed  on  principles  of  brutality  and  retaliation 
happily  growing  obsolete.  But  to  secure  the  removal  of 
penal  legislation,  it  was  necessary  for  the  Romanists  in 
England  to  reassure  the  public  opinion  that  they  were 
not  bound  by. theories  from  Rome  irreconcilable  with 
English  loyalty. 

When  accordingly  in  the  year  1788  a  Committee 
of  English  Romanists  was  formed  to  appeal  to  Parlia 
ment  for  the  removal  of  Roman  disabilities,2  the 
petitioners  declared  that  it  was  a  duty  which  they 
owed  to  their  country,  as  well  as  themselves,  to  protest 
in  a  formal  and  solemn  manner  against  doctrines  which 

1  Quoted  in  W.  Ward's  Life  of  Wiseman^  i.  p.  515. 

a  See  Butler,  Historical  Memoirs  of  the  English  Catholics ',  vol.  ii.  p.  1158". 


ioo         OPPOSITION    IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

constituted  no  part  of  their  principles,  religion,  or  belief.1 
Among  these  they  rejected  the  theory  that  excom 
municated  princes  may  be  deposed  or  murdered  by 
their  subjects.  They  declared  that  no  ecclesiastical 
power  whatever  can  absolve  subjects  from  allegiance  to 
lawful  temporal  authority.2  They  wrote  :  "  We  believe 
that  no  act  that  is  in  itself  immoral  or  dishonest  can 
ever  be  justified  by  or  under  colour  that  it  is  done 
either  for  the  good  of  the  Church  or  in  obedience  to 
any  ecclesiastical  power  whatever."3  And — what  now 
particularly  concerns  us  here — they  said :  "  We  acknow 
ledge  no  Infallibility  in  the  Pope." 

This  protestation  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  England 
brought  about  the  passing  of  the  Relief  Act  of  1791. 
The  representative  character  of  the  document  may  be 
realised  from  the  fact  that  it  was  signed  by  all  the 
four  Vicars  Apostolic ;  that  is  by  all  the  highest 
Roman  authorities  in  England,  by  240  priests;  and 
in  all  by  1,523  members  of  the  Anglo-Roman  body, 
among  whom  most  of  the  educated  and  influential 
laity  were  included.  It  would  be  interesting  to 
ascertain  what  proportion  the  240  priests  bore  to  the 
total  number  of  Roman  clergy  in  this  land.  Accurate 
statistics  are  not  easily  obtained.  The  Committee  of 
English  Romanists  claimed  that  the  total  number 
of  Roman  priests  in  England  did  not  exceed  260. 
Berington,  in  1780,  estimated  the  number  as  nearer 
360,  of  whom  1 10  were  ex- Jesuits.  From  these  figures 
it  would  appear  that,  if  the  Jesuits  are  left  out,  nearly 
the  whole  body  of  Roman  Clergy  in  England,  including 
their  four  Bishops,  committed  themselves  frankly  to 
rejection  of  Papal  Infallibility.4 

1  See  Butler,  Historical  Mtmoirs  of  the  English  Catholics ,  vol.  ii.  p.  117. 

2  Ibid.  p.  1 1 8.  3  Ibid.  p.  119. 
4  Bernard  Ward,  Dawn  of  the  Catholic  Revival >  i.  p.  151. 


x.]  BUTLER  AND  CLIFFORD  101 

Dr  Milner  describes  it,  indeed,  as  "  drawn  up  in 
ungrammatical  language,  with  inconclusive  reasoning 
and  erroneous  theology."1  And  a  vicar  apostolic  who 
first  signed  it  afterwards  withdrew  his  signature.2  On 
the  other  hand,  an  influential  section  of  the  Communion 
placed  the  document  in  the  British  Museum,  "that  it 
may  be  preserved  there  as  a  lasting  memorial  of  their 
political  and  moral  integrity."3 

The  history  of  Irish  Roman  belief  is  similar.  An  Act 
for  their  relief  was  passed  in  1793.  It  contains  an  oath 
which  states  that  "  it  is  not  an  article  of  the  Catholic 
Faith,  neither  am  I  thereby  required  to  believe  or  profess 
that  the  Pope  is  infallible."  4 

In  an  address  to  Protestants  of  the  United  Empire  in 
1813  by  a  Roman  Catholic  writer  (Charles  Butler),  anti- 
Roman  prejudice  is  reassured  by  the  terms  of  the  oath 
taken  by  Irish  Roman  Catholics  :5  "In  the  oath  taken 
by  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics  they  swear  that  'it  is  not 
an  article  of  the  Catholic  faith,  and  that  they  are  not 
thereby  bound  to  believe  or  profess  that  the  Pope 
is  infallible.'"6 

No  less  unmistakable  is  the  language  of  a  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  in  England  in  1822  : — 

"  Bellarmine  and  some  other  divines,  chiefly  Italians, 
have  believed  the  Pope  infallible,  when  proposing  ex 
cathedra  an  article  of  faith.  But  in  England  or  Ireland 
I  do  not  believe  that  any  Catholic  maintains  the  Infalli 
bility  of  the  Pope." 7 

The  Pastoral  Address  of  the  Irish  Bishops  to  their 
clergy  and  laity  in  1826  declared  that  it  is  "not  an 

1  Cf.  Husenbeth's  Life  of  Milner,  p.  23.  2  Ibid.  p.  24. 

1  Cf.  Gladstone,  Vaticanism,  p.  47.  4  Ibid.  p.  48. 

3  Gladstone,  Vaticanism,  p.  218,  6  Ibid.  p.  230. 

7  Bishop  Baine's  Defence,  quoted  in  Gladstone,  Vaticanism,  p.  48. 


102          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

article  of  the  Catholic  faith,  neither  are  they  thereby 
required  to  believe  that  the  Pope  is  infallible."1 

Accordingly,  a  Roman  Catholic  nobleman,  Lord 
Clifford,  writing  to  reassure  the  English  peers  on  the 
Maynooth  Endowment  Bill,  could  say  in  1845:  "It 
is  not  an  article  of  Catholic  faith  that  the  Pope  is 
infallible  even  in  matters  of  faith." 2 

There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  doubt  the  sincerity 
of  the  Romanist  statements.  They  were  not  misrepre 
senting  their  convictions  to  improve  their  circumstances. 
They  genuinely  believed  these  principles.  They  claimed 
as  Catholics  an  independence  from  Romanising  views. 

When  Dr  Wiseman  (afterwards  Cardinal)  was  nomin 
ated  by  the  Pope  to  the  London  District  in  1847, 
nearly  all  the  clergy,  says  Wilfred  Ward,  "  were 
sufficiently  imbued  by  the  conservative  and  national 
spirit  to  be  opposed  to  his  energetic  scheme  of  reform." 3 
They  viewed  with  distaste  his  "  Romanising  "  proclivities. 
Trained  in  the  College  in  Rome,  having  spent  years 
under  the  Pope's  immediate  direction,  Wiseman  returned 
to  England  bent  on  propagating  that  "  papistic  spirit " 
against  which  the  older  English  Roman  Catholics,  as 
represented  by  Sir  John  Throgmorton,  had  so  vigorously 
protested.4  The  introduction  of  the  Jesuit  and  other 
religious  Orders  was  Wiseman's  work,  and  it  was  re 
pugnant  to  the  temper  and  prejudices  of  the  old 
Romanist  families  in  England.  But  Rome  approved,  and 
Wiseman  persisted.  Then  came  the  re-establishment 
of  the  Roman  Hierarchy  in  England,  the  elevation  of 
Wiseman  to  the  Cardinalate,  and  his  return  to  England 
as  Archbishop  of  Westminster.  Then  the  Tractarian 
movement  gave  new  life  to  the  Anglican  Church ;  but 

1  Gladstone,  Vatican  Decrees,  vol.  xliii.  ed.  1875* 

2  Letters  to  the  Earl  of  Winchelsea,  p.  15. 

3  Life  of  Wiseman,  i.  p.  515.  *  Ibid.  p.  512. 


x.]  BISHOP   ERRINGTON  103 

it  also  contributed  new  distinction  and  new  strength  to 
the  Roman  Communion.  Converts  like  Faber  threw 
themselves,  with  the  convert's  proverbial  intensity,  into 
the  most  extreme  of  Roman  devotions,  legends,  and 
principles ;  much  to  the  amazement  and  disgust  of  the 
old-fashioned  Romans,  who  found  themselves  regarded 
with  coldness  and  indifference,  as  half-  Catholic,  at 
Rome,  while  the  zealous  converted  extremists  basked 
in  the  sunshine  of  Rome's  approval.  There  is  no  little 
irony  in  the  situation.  The  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the 
London  district  warned  Newman  on  his  conversion 
against  "  books  of  devotion  of  the  Italian  School." l 
Faber  reproduced  the  most  Italianised  lives  of  the 
saints.  Bishop  Ullathorne  of  Birmingham,  himself  of 
old  Roman  family,  considered  these  Italian  compositions 
unsuited  to  this  country.  Newman,  as  Superior  of  the 
Oratory,  wrote  to  Faber,  describing  them  as  "  unsuited 
to  England  and  unacceptable  to  Protestants." 2  Accord 
ingly  the  publications  ceased.  But  Wiseman's  exertions 
to  promote  Ultramontanism  within  the  Roman  Com 
munion  continued,  and  were  most  successful.  Here  is 
a  letter  of  approval  written  to  the  Cardinal  from 
influential  quarters  in  Rome : — 

"  I  can  say  that  you  have  been  the  instrument  under 
God,  to  Romanise  England.  .  .  .  You  have  been  able 
to  change  the  whole  feeling  of  the  rising  clergy,  and 
to  instil  into  the  laity  what  Roman  principles  they 
possess."  3 

But  if  Wiseman  "  changed  the  feeling  of  the  rising 
clergy,"  this  was  not  done  without  desperate  struggles 
on  the  part  of  the  older  clergy.  Wiseman,  whose 
insight  into  human  nature  was  of  the  scantiest,  chose 

1  Life  of  Wiseman^  ii.  p.  221. 

*  Ibid.  p.  223.  8  1859. 


104          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

as  his  coadjutor,  with  the  right  of  succession,  Bishop 
Errington.  Errington  belonged  to  the  older  school. 
The  Chapter  of  Westminster  agreed  with  him.  Accord 
ingly  Wiseman  found  himself  opposed  by  the  Chapter, 
with  the  Coadjutor-Bishop  as  their  leader.  The  contest 
which  followed  was,  says  Wilfred  Ward,  "  the  turning 
point  in  the  controversy  between  the  conservative 
policy  and  that  of  the  new  Ultramontanism." l  It 
was  no  merely  personal  struggle,  but  a  struggle  of 
principles.  On  the  other  side,  Wiseman  pushed  forward 
Manning,  whom  the  Pope  sent  from  Rome  and  placed 
as  Provost  over  the  entire  Chapter  of  Westminster. 

Into  the  details  of  the  struggle  we  cannot  go.  But 
Errington  and  Manning  fought  for  opposing  principles. 
Manning,  says  Wilfred  Ward,  with  his  "  fixed  ideas  and 
firm  determination." 2  As  to  Errington :  "  iron  deter 
mination  and  persistency  were  stamped  on  face  and 
figure."  "  Both  men  of  strong  will  with  utterly  opposite 
ideals  and  aims."3  Errington  had  none  of  the  tactful 
discretion  of  the  diplomatist  in  his  constitution,  and 
was  no  match  for  the  subtlety  of  Manning.  And 
ultimately,  on  Wiseman's  appeal  to  Rome,  Errington 
was  removed  by  the  Pope  from  the  position  of  Coadjutor, 
and  lost  his  right  of  succession  to  the  Archbishopric  of 
Westminster.  The  main  charge  against  him  was  that 
he  was  anti  -  Roman  in  sympathies.4  Great  was  the 
rejoicing  among  the  Ultramontanes  at  this  victory. 
The  succession  of  Bishop  Errington  was  their  greatest 
fear. 

"  I  cannot  conceive  a  greater  misfortune,"  wrote  a  high 
authority  from  Rome  to  Cardinal  Wiseman,  "  than  your 
being  followed  by  Dr  Errington,  who,  I  feel  certain,  if 
he  ever  become  Archbishop  of  Westminster,  will  do  all 

1  Life  of  Wiseman,  ii.  p.  321. 
2  Ibid.  ii.  p.  265.  *  Ibid.  p.  254.       4  Ibid.  p.  332. 


x.]  BISHOP   ERRINGTON  105 

he  can  to  undo  what  has  been   done,  and  will   be  a 
constant  source  of  annoyance  to  the  Holy  See." l 

Father  Faber  wrote  in  similar  strains  : — 

"  If  [Dr  Errington]  returns  to  Westminster  as  Arch 
bishop,  the  Holy  See  will  have  to  reckon  that  it  will 
take  fifty,  if  not  a  hundred,  years  to  restore  England 
to  the  pitch  of  Ultramontanism  which  she  has  now 
reached."2 

On  Wiseman's  death  the  older  Catholic  party  made 
one  more  struggle  for  supremacy.  The  Chapter  of 
Westminster,  notwithstanding  that  Manning  presided, 
longed  for  a  Bishop  of  the  older  school.  Accord 
ingly,  their  then  selected  candidates  were  Bishop 
Errington,  Bishop  Grant,  and  Bishop  Clifford.  The 
insertion  of  Errington's  name  was  considered  by  the 
Pope  as  a  personal  insult.  In  the  interests  of  their  own 
aims  it  was  certainly  unwise ;  for  it  rendered  the  Pope 
disinclined  to  listen  to  any  of  the  Chapter's  suggestions.3 
As  for  Bishop  Clifford,  Manning  denounced  him  in  a 
private  letter  to  Rome  as  a  worldly  Catholic,  i.e. 
opposed  to  the  Ultramontanes  ;  and  he  sided  against 
Infallibility  afterwards  in  the  Vatican  Council.  As  for 
Bishop  Grant,  Manning  wrote  : — 

"  I  cannot  for  a  moment  even  fear  that  the  Holy  See 
would  accept  any  one  of  these  names.  1  wish,"  added 
Manning,  conscious  of  the  critical  nature  of  the  struggle 
for  the  future  of  Ultramontanism  in  England,  "  I  wish 
that  the  Holy  Father  would  reserve  the  Archbishopric 
in  perpetuity  to  the  Holy  See.  For  it  is  perfectly 
certain  that  whoever  comes,  it  is  a  question  of  a  change 
of  policy.  It  is  Tories  out  and  Whigs  in,  with  all  the 
consequences." 4 


1  Life  of  Wiseman^  p.  331. 
8  Life  of  Manning^  ii.  p.  206. 


2  Ibid.  p.  370. 
4  Ibid. 


106         OPPOSITION    IN    ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

Manning's  prophetic  instinct  proved  correct.  Pius  IX. 
paused,  reflected,  took  advice,  and  ultimately,  not  how 
ever  without  considerable  misgivings,  set  aside  all  three 
of  the  Chapter's  nominations,  and  on  his  own  authority 
appointed  Manning.1  Now  Manning  led  the  English 
Ultramontanes  in  the  Council  of  the  Vatican. 

But  the  task  of  Romanising  the  English  Catholics 
was  no  easy  thing.  The  literature  of  the  Roman 
Communion  in  England  and  Ireland  during  the 
eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  century  shows  how 
thoroughly  saturated  they  were  with  Catholic  as  con 
trasted  with  Ultramontane  convictions.  It  is  difficult  to 
obtain  that  literature  in  its  genuine  and  original  form 
to-day;  for  of  course  all  works  reprinted  since  1870 
have  been  altered  into  conformity  with  Vatican  ideas. 
In  some  cases  the  process  of  reducing  to  conformity 
was  begun  at  an  earlier  date.  It  is  therefore  with 
works  printed  before  1870  that  we  are  now  concerned. 

i.  For  example,  in  the  well-known  Roman  manual  of 
theology  by  Berrington  and  Kirk,  entitled  the  Faith  of 
Catholics^  confirmed  by  Scripture,  and  attested  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  first  five  centuries — with  St  Vincent's 
maxim  on  the  title-page  ("  that  which  has  been  believed 
always  everywhere,"  etc.)  —  we  find  the  following 
teaching  on  Infallibility  : — 

"  It  is  no  article  of  Catholic  Faith  to  believe  that  the 
Pope  is  himself  infallible,  separated  from  the  Church, 
even  in  expounding  the  Faith :  by  consequence,  Papal 
definitions  or  decrees,  in  whatever  form  pronounced, 
taken  exclusively  from  a  General  Council  or  acceptance 
of  the  Church,  oblige  no  one  under  pain  of  heresy  to  an 
interior  assent"2 

This  teaching,  found  in  the  edition  of  1830,  now 
disappears. 

1   1865.  2  Page  165. 


x.]          DELAHOGUE   AND   DE   LISLE         107 

2.  Delahogue  was  Professor  in  Dublin  where  his  theo 
logical  works  were  published  in  several  volumes  in 
1829.  The  type  of  instruction  then  given  in  an  Irish 
seminary  to  students  of  Roman  theology  may  be 
understood  from  the  fact  that  Delahogue  asserts  that 
the  doctrine  that  the  Roman  Pontiff,  even  when  he 
speaks  ex  cathedra^  is  possessed  of  the  gift  of  inerrancy 
or  is  superior  to  General  Councils  may  be  denied 
without  loss  of  faith  or  risk  of  heresy  or  schism. 

To  justify  this  position  appeal  is  made  among  others 
to  Cardinal  Perron  who,  although  himself  a  supporter 
of  the  doctrine  of  papal  inerrancy,  assured  King 
James  I.  that  the  question  was  not  a  hindrance  to 
Ecclesiastical  Reunion ;  since  whichever  view  his 
Majesty  might  adopt  he  would  none  the  less  on  either 
side  be  recognised  as  Catholic. 

Delahogue  appealed  also  to  the  fact  that  no  reference 
to  Papal  Infallibility  occurs  in  the  Creed  of  Pius  IV. 
Bossuet's  famous  exposition  affirmed  that  matters  dis 
puted  in  the  schools  of  theology,  and  invidiously 
brought  forward  by  Calvinistic  doctors,  were  no  part 
of  the  Catholic  Faith ;  and  Bossuet's  Exposition  was 
endorsed  by  a  brief  of  Innocent  XI.  Delahogue  also 
pointed  out  that  inferences  from  the  figurative  com 
parison  of  the  relation  between  the  Pope  and  the 
Church  to  that  between  the  human  head  and  body 
must  be  drawn  with  discretion.  The  effect  of  decapita 
tion  upon  the  human  body  differs  from  that  of  the 
death  of  a  Pope  upon  the  Church.  Indeed  the  latter 
is  essentially  the  same  in  spite  of  a  long  interregnum, 
or  a  schism,  or  a  doubtful  succession  of  forty  years. 
Similarly,  it  does  not  follow  that  an  ex  cathedra 
fallacious  utterance  would  be  the  Church's  ruin. 

3.  De  Lisle,  who  was  received  into  the  Roman  Com 
munion  at  the  age  of  fifteen,  in  1825,  was  moulded  in 


io8          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

the  Roman  convictions  as  held  in  England  at  that  date. 
Forty  years  later  he  recorded  his  faith  in  the  following 
words : — 

"  We  are  far  from  claiming  for  the  Papacy  any  separate 
Infallibility  distinct  from  that  which  all  Catholics  are 
bound  to  believe  in,  as  the  prerogative  of  the  Universal 
Church.  Those  who  make  so  novel  a  claim  must 
reconcile  it  with  the  grave  facts  of  ecclesiastical 
history.  .  .  .  And  we  believe  that  with  those  facts 
undenied  and  not  disproved  it  would  be  impossible  for 
the  Church  to  define  any  such  theories  to  be  articles  of 
faith."1 

The  following  year  De  Lisle  repeated  his  convictions 
on  Infallibility  in  a  letter  to  Father  Ryder,  afterwards 
Superior  of  the  Birmingham  Oratory. 

"  I  will  tell  you  my  own  belief,  as  to  that  attribute 
of  Holy  Church,  which  a  learned  Bishop  pronounced 
accurate  and  orthodox.  First  of  all,  I  believe  Infallibility 
to  be  a  conjunctive  and  collective  attribute  of  the  whole 
Catholic  Church  according  to  the  words  of  Holy  Church  in 
her  Collect,  '  God  by  whose  Spirit  the  whole  body  of  the 
Church  is  governed  and  sanctified.'  In  other  words,  the 
infallible  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  the 
whole  Church  in  its  collective  capacity,  to  the  Laity 
as  well  as  the  Clergy.  To  the  latter  especially  in  their 
collective  capacity  as  the  teachers.  To  the  former  as 
the  recipients  of  that  teaching,  giving  them  an  instinctive 
apprehension  of  what  is  or  is  not  in  conformity  with 
the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church.  Now  in  this 
view  of  the  matter,  no  one,  whether  pastor  or  layman, 
has  any  separate  personal  gift  of  the  infallible  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  it  is  given  to  all  collectively 
in  order  to  enable  them  safely  to  keep  and  rightly  to 
apprehend  the  Deposit  of  Faith.  .  .  .  Now  it  follows 
from  my  view  that  all  Catholics — from  the  Pope  down 
wards  to  the  meanest  baptized  layman — all  are  under 

1  Ambrose  Lisle  Phillipps,  Union  Review,  May  1866,  p.  95. 


x.]  MILNER  109 

the  infallible  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  long  as 
all,  in  their  respective  positions,  whether  as  Teachers 
or  Believers,  are  acting  and  believing  according  to  the 
unchangeable  Deposit,  for  the  preservation  and  right 
understanding  of  which  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing 
and  of  feeding  the  whole  flock  has  been  conferred  upon 
the  supreme  Pastor."1 

4.  Milner's  End  of  Religious  Controversy  was  written  to 
explain  the  Roman  tenets  to  Protestants  and  to  remove 
misapprehensions.2 

"When  any  fresh  controversy  arises  in  the  Church, 
the  fundamental  maxim  of  the  Bishops  and  Popes  to 
whom  it  belongs  to  decide  upon  it,  is,  not  to  consult 
their  own  private  opinion  or  interpretation  of  Scripture 
but  to  enquire  what  is  and  ever  has  been  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  concerning  it.  Hence  their  cry  is  and  ever 
has  been  on  such  occasions,  as  well  in  her  Councils  as 
out  of  them  :  So  we  have  received ;  so  the  Universal 
Church  believes:  let  there  be  no  new  doctrine;  none  but 
what  has  been  delivered  down  to  us  by  Tradition. 
The  Infallibility,  then,  of  our  Church  is  not  a  power 
of  telling  all  things  past,  present,  and  to  come,  such 
as  Pagans  ascribed  to  their  oracles ;  but  merely  the 
aid  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  to  enable  her  truly  to  decide 
what  her  faith  is  and  has  ever  been,  in  such  articles 
as  have  been  made  known  to  her  by  Scripture  and 
tradition.  This  definition  furnishes  answer  to  divers 
other  objections  and  questions.  .  .  .  The  Church  does 
not  decide  the  controversy  concerning  the  Conception 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  several  other  disputed  points, 
because  she  sees  nothing  absolutely  clear  and  certain 
concerning  them,  either  in  the  written  or  the  unwritten 
word,  and  therefore  leaves  her  children  to  form  their 
own  opinions  concerning  them.  Finally  his  Lordship, 
with  other  controversialists,  objects  against  the  Infalli 
bility  of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  its  advocates  are 
not  agreed  where  to  lodge  this  prerogative,  some 

1  1867.     De  Lisle,  Life,  ii.  pp.  36,  37. 

2  Milner,  End  of  Religious  Controversy ',  ed.  2,  1819,  p.  150. 


i  io         OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND  [CHAP. 

ascribing  it  to  the  Pope,  others  to  a  General  Council, 
or  to  the  Bishops  dispersed  throughout  the  Church. 
True,  schoolmen  discuss  some  such  points ;  but  let 
me  ask  his  Lordship  whether  he  finds  any  Catholic 
who  denies  or  doubts  that  a  General  Council,  with 
the  Pope  at  its  head,  or  that  the  Pope  himself,  issuing 
a  doctrinal  decision  which  is  received  by  the  great 
body  of  Catholic  Bishops,  is  secure  from  error  ?  Most 
certainly  not,  and  hence  he  may  gather  where  all 
Catholics  agree  in  lodging  Infallibility." 

Milner's  view  of  Catholicism  is  that  if  we  would 
know  what  is  of  faith,  we  must  ask  what  is  and  ever 
has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  A  dogma  cannot 
be  something  new.  It  must  be  what  has  been  universally 
believed  from  the  beginning.  Tried  by  this  test,  he 
finds  that  the  Immaculate  Conception  is  an  opinion,  not 
a  doctrine  of  the  Church;  that  individuals  are  free  to 
form  their  own  opinion  concerning  it,  because  there 
was  nothing  absolutely  clear  and  certain  about  it  either 
in  the  written  or  the  unwritten  word ;  that  Papal 
Infallibility  was  a  matter  of  scholastic  discussion,  a 
theory  of  theologians,  but  that  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Church  was  a  matter  which  no  Catholic  doubted. 

5.  Gallitzin's  rejection  of  Papal  Infallibility  is  even 
more  emphatic. 

"  Although  I  have  plainly  told  the  Protestant  minister 
that  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  is  no  part  of  the 
Catholic  Creed,  a  mere  opinion  of  some  divines,  an 
article  nowhere  to  be  found  in  our  professions  of  faith, 
in  our  creeds,  in  our  catechisms,  etc.,  yet  the  Protestant 
minister  most  ungenerously  and  uncandidly  brings  it 
forward,  over  and  over  again,  as  an  article  of  the 
Catholic  faith;  and  takes  his  opportunity  from  this 
forgery  of  his  own  to  abuse  the  Catholic  Church." l 

1  Gallitzin,  Defence  of  Catholic  Principles.  See  Papal  Infallibility,  by  a 
Roman  Catholic  layman,  1876,  p.  16. 


x.]  KEEN  AN'  S   CATECHISM  in 

6.  Another  exposition  of  the  Roman  faith  for  English- 
speaking  people  is  the  famous  book  called  Keenaris 
Catechism.  It  is  entitled  Controversial  Catechism,  or 
Protestantism  Refuted  and  Catholicism  Established. 
The  edition  of  1860  is  described  as  the  third  edition, 
and  in  its  seventeenth  thousand.  It  bears  the  im 
primatur  of  four  Roman  Bishops,  two  of  them  being 
Vicars  Apostolic.  In  these  approbations  we  are  assured 
that  "the  sincere  searcher  after  truth  will  here  find  a 
lucid  path  opened  to  conduct  him  to  its  sanctuary  ; 
while  the  believer  will  be  hereby  instructed  and  con 
firmed  in  his  faith."  From  1846  to  1860  it  was  being 
largely  circulated  throughout  England,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland. 

The  book  contains  the  following  question  and 
answer  :  — 


Must  not  Catholics  believe  the  Pope  in  himself 
to  be  infallible? 

(A.)  This  is  a  Protestant  invention:  it  is  no  article 
of  the  Catholic  faith  :  no  decision  of  his  can  oblige 
under  pain  of  heresy,  unless  it  be  received  and  enforced 
by  the  teaching  body,  that  is  by  the  bishops  of  the 
Church." 

Keenaris  Catechism  has  since  1870  appeared  with 
alterations.  The  new  edition  is,  as  the  preface  justly 
remarks,  "more  than  a  mere  reprint."  As  issued  in 
1896,  it  rightly  styles  itself  a  "revised  edition."  The 
question  and  answer  just  quoted  have  of  course  now 
disappeared.  They  are  replaced  by  a  series  of  ten 
enquiries,  with  answers  giving  exactly  the  contrary 
doctrine.  The  first  of  these  runs  as  follows  :  — 


What    do    Catholics   believe    concerning    the 
Infallibility  of  the  Pope  ? 

(A.)  That  the  visible  Head  of  the  Church  on  earth 
received  from  Christ  the  same  prerogative  of  Infalli- 


ii2          OPPOSITION   IN  ENGLAND  [CHAP. 

bility  which   we    have  shown   above  to   be  necessary 
to  and  belong  to  the  Church  by  divine  institution."1 

Thus  what  was  formerly  denounced  as  a  Protestant 
invention  is  now  affirmed  as  a  Catholic  truth. 

The  earlier  revisers  of  Keenarts  Catechism  contented 
themselves  with  quiet  substitution  of  the  new  doctrine 
for  the  old  without  further  explanation.  But  the  later 
revisers  have  felt  that  something  more  was  necessary 
to  justify  the  change.  Accordingly  they  inserted  the 
following : — 

"  ((20  But  some  Catholics  before  the  Vatican  Council 
denied  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  which  was  also 
formerly  impugned  in  this  very  Catechism. 

(A.)  Yes ;  but  they  did  so  under  the  usual  reservation 
— *  in  so  far  as  they  then  could  grasp  the  mind  of  the 
Church,  and  subject  to  her  future  definitions' — thus 
implicitly  accepting  the  dogma;  had  they  been  pre 
pared  to  maintain  their  own  opinion  contumaciously 
in  such  case  they  would  have  been  Catholics  only  in 
name." 

That  is  to  say,  that  teaching  endorsed  by  Catholic 
Bishops  is  delivered  under  the  reservation  that  the 
opposite  may  be  true  ;  that  this  is  the  usual  reserva 
tion,  applicable  therefore  to  all  Episcopal  teaching ; 
that  no  certainty  exists  in  the  Roman  Communion 
whether  instruction  now  being  given  as  Catholic  may 
not  be  upset  and  reversed  by  some  future  definition  ; 
(in  which  case  what  is  its  authoritative  value  and  its 
relation  to  truth?)  and  that  the  Roman  Bishops  who 
endorsed  Keenan's  first  edition  implicitly  accepted  the 
dogma  which  they  explicitly  denied.  I  am  most 
anxious  not  to  exaggerate.  But  this  seems  an 
intellectual  and  a  moral  confusion.  There  is  some 
thing  wrong  with  a  cause  which  requires  such  a  defence. 

1  Page  in. 


x.]  KEENAWS   CATECHISM  113 

But  this  is  not  all.  For  the  revised  edition  goes  on  to 
enquire,  "  Were  there  any  other  dogmas  defined  by  the 
Church  which  had  been  controverted  before  decision  ?  " 
This  is  answered  in  the  affirmative.  "  Nearly  every 
definition  of  dogma  by  the  Church  had  been  preceded 
by  a  period  of  controversy,  in  which  theologians  ranked 
themselves  on  different  sides."  Then  the  question  is 
asked : — 

"  (Q.)  Can  you  name  any  Controversies  on  fundamental 
dogma  on  which  the  Church  pronounced  in  the  same 
way  as  she  did  on  Papal  Infallibility  at  the  Vatican 
Council  ? 

(A.)  Yes.  The  Divinity  of  Christ  was  not  formally 
defined  till  the  first  Council  of  Nicsea  (325)." 

Some  other  instances  having  been  given,  we  then  reach 
the  Question — 

"  (Q-)  What  do  you  conclude  from  these  observations  ? 

(A.)  That  the  definition  of  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Pope  as  a  dogma  of  primitive  Christian  Revelation  has 
historically  run  a  course  similar  to  the  definition  of 
many  other  fundamental  articles  of  the  Catholic  Faith." 

The  implications  of  this  assertion  are  worth  consider 
ing.  A  parallel  is  drawn  between  the  attitude  of 
Catholics  towards  the  two  doctrines  of  Papal  Infalli 
bility  and  of  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  have 
historically,  it  is  said,  run  a  similar  course.  Now  we 
ask  just  this :  Were  those  Bishops  who  endorsed 
Keenaris  Catechism  Catholics  or  not?  There  is  only 
one  possible  reply :  Yes,  they  were.  They  lived  and 
died  in  the  Communion  of  the  Roman  Church.  It 
was  then  possible  to  be  a  Catholic  before  1870  and 
yet  deny  this  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility.  But  was 
it  ever  possible  to  be  a  Catholic  while  denying  the 
other  doctrine,  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ?  There 
is  only  one  answer  that  can  be  given.  Assuredly  it 

H 


ii4         OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND  [CHAP. 

was  not.     Explicit  denial  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord 

must  indisputably  ipso  facto  exclude  from  Catholicity, 

and   must  have  had   this   effect   at  any  stage  in  the 

development  of  Christendom.     Consequently  the  parallel 

between   the   course   which   these   two   doctrines   have 

historically  pursued  is  simply  misleading  and  untrue. 

Indeed    the    assertion    grievously    misrepresents    the 

evidence.     A   real   parallel  would   require  that   as  the 

doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  disputed  by  Roman 

Catholics    for    many   hundreds    of  years,    and    openly 

described  as  a  mere  opinion  of  the  Schools  which  might 

be  taken  or  left  without  detriment  to  Catholicity — indeed 

controversially  deprecated  as  an  invention  of  opponents, 

ungenerously  and  uncandidly  ascribed  to  the  Catholic 

Church,  while  its   acceptance   and   rejection  were  both 

tolerated    by    the    Church    itself — similar    experience 

awaited  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.     But 

not  one  iota  of  this  holds  good  with  the  Divinity  of 

Christ.     Our   Lord's   Divinity  was  never  disputed   by 

Catholics,  never  openly  described  as   a   mere  opinion 

of  the   schools;    its  rejection  never   was   or   could   be 

tolerated  by  the  Church  for  a  single  hour.     No  doubt 

there  were   imperfect  expressions  in   the   ante-Nicene 

period,   but   there  was  no  silence  on  this  doctrine  in 

the  primitive  Church.     The  Arian  was  not  an  implicit 

Catholic,  inwardly  prepared  to  accept  what  he  outwardly 

denied.     Nor   would    he   have    been    grateful    for    this 

explanation  of  his  attitude.     He  never  was  a  Catholic 

at  all.     Moreover,  if  the  character  of  the  two  doctrines 

be  considered,  it  is  inevitable  to  ask  whether  the  doctrine 

of  Papal   Infallibility  is  fundamental  in  the  Christian 

Faith.     If  it   be    fundamental    after    the    Church    has 

defined   it,   it  was   fundamental   before  the  definition. 

A  doctrine  does  not  become  fundamental  through  the 

Church's  definition,  but  through  its  own  intrinsic  char- 


x.]  MURRAY  OF   MAYNOOTH  115 

acter.  It  therefore  remains  unaccounted  for  that  a  funda 
mental  of  the  Christian  Faith  should  be  described  as  a 
Protestant  invention,  and  such  description  sanctioned 
by  Catholic  Bishops,  and  tolerated  by  Rome. 

It  is  really  incredible  that  a  critically  or  historically 
trained  intellect  could  venture  on  so  daring  and  un- 
historic  a  parallel.  Such  uncritical  defence  not  only 
fails  to  secure  its  design,  but  suggests  an  insecurity 
in  the  Church's  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  her  Lord. 
Such  defence  is  necessitated  by  the  school  which  is 
constrained  to  condemn  what  it  previously  taught,  and 
to  teach  what  it  once  condemned  ;  but  the  necessity  for 
such  defence  betrays  the  character  of  the  doctrine  which 
requires  it. 

The  historical  evidence,  which  might  be  considerably 
increased,  shows  that  English  Romanists  in  general  did 
not  hold  Papal  Infallibility  even  as  a  private  opinion ; 
that,  on  the  contrary,  they  maintained  principles  by 
which  that  opinion  is  excluded ;  that  they  believed 
in  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church,  but  placed  that  Infalli 
bility  in  the  Collective  Episcopate  whether  assembled 
or  dispersed. 

7.  Even  in  the  great  College  of  Maynooth  itself  an 
Irish  Roman  Catholic  Professor  could  publish  as  late 
as  1 86 1  such  words  as  these: — 

"  That  the  Universal  Church  is  infallible  in  its  belief 
and  profession  of  faith,  that  the  body  of  pastors  is 
infallible  in  teaching,  are  two  dogmas  of  Catholic  faith, 
That  the  Infallibility  of  the  Chief  Pontiff  is  a  revealed 
truth,  and  therefore  definable,  as  of  Catholic  faith,  is  to 
me  personally  perfectly  clear.  Nevertheless,  since  it 
belongs  to  the  Church  alone  to  determine  what  is 
essential  to  belief,  and  since  that  dogma  has  never  yet 
been  in  that  manner  proposed  to  be  believed,  they  who 
genuinely  hold  the  contrary  are  by  no  means  or  only 


ii6          OPPOSITION    IN    ENGLAND  [CHAP. 

in  the  least  degree  (unless  indeed  some  other  ground  be 
shown)  to  be  considered  alien  from  the  Catholic  Faith." l 

Here  we  have  striking  indications  of  a  change.  The 
Ultramontane  influence  is  recognised,  although  not 
submitted  to ;  Papal  Infallibility  is  acknowledged  as  a 
private  opinion  of  the  teacher,  but  the  contrary  opinion 
is,  with  reserve,  recognised  to  be  legitimate.  This  utter 
ance  from  Maynooth  becomes  more  intelligible  when 
it  is  remembered  that  Cardinal  Cullen,  trained  in  Rome 
and  nominated  Primate  of  Ireland  by  Pius  IX.,  was  now 
presiding  over  that  Communion  in  Dublin.  Cullen, 
says  Ollivier,  responded  admirably  to  the  confidence 
which  Pius  IX.  placed  in  him.2 

"The  Romanised  Cullen,"  says  another,  "whom  the 
Pope  forced  as  Primate  on  the  Irish  Bishops,  with  the 
same  view  as  he  imposed  Manning  on  the  English 
Bishops,  is  of  course  an  Infallibilist."3 

Journalism  in  England  took  no  unimportant  part  in 
the  struggle  between  Catholic  and  Ultramontane.  That 
most  paradoxical  extremist,  the  convert  Ward,  was 
appointed  by  Wiseman  in  1862  editor  of  the  Dublin 
Review.^  Ward's  ideal  in  his  Roman  days  was  spiritual 
dictatorship  of  the  most  absolute  character.5  He  said 
he  wanted  pontifical  decrees  every  morning  for  break 
fast  with  his  newspaper.  And  Manning  encouraged 
him.  Manning  shut  his  eyes  to  Ward's  exaggerations 
and  rejoiced  in  his  uncompromising  tone. 

"  What  we  need,"  he  wrote,  "  is  incisive  assertion  of 
the  loftiest  truths.  I  am  persuaded  that  boldness  is 
prudence,  and  that  our  danger  lies  in  half  truths."6 

1  Murray,  Tractatus  d&  Ecclesia  Christ,  ii.  (l),  p.  171. 

2  Ollivier,  LEglise  et  UEtat.  ii.  p.  9.  s  Quirinus,  p.  290. 
4  Thureau  Dangin,  ii.  p.  336.           6  Ibid.  p.  343. 


x.]  LORD   ACTON  117 

So  blessed  and  sanctioned,  Ward  went  straight  ahead. 
The  Ultramontanism  of  the  Dublin  Review  must  have 
been  gall  and  bitterness  to  the  old-fashioned  English 
Romanist. 

While  Ward  and  the  Dublin  Review,  supported  by 
Manning,  pushed  papal  absolutism  to  the  furthest 
extremes,  Lord  Acton  and  the  series  of  journals  with 
which  he  was  connected,  such  as  the  Rambler  and  the 
short-lived  but  brilliant  Home  and  Foreign  Review, 
recalled  the  Catholic  mind  to  the  facts  of  History. 
Abbot  Gasquet's  estimate  of  the  Dublin  Review  and 
the  Rambler  is  significant. 

"  The  Dublin  Review  and  the  Rambler  were  conducted 
upon  lines  wholly  divergent.  In  historical  matters  the 
policy  of  the  Diiblin  Review  appears  to  have  been  to 
avoid  as  far  as  possible  facing  unpleasant  facts  in  the 
past,  and  to  explain  away,  if  it  could  not  directly  deny, 
the  existence  of  blots  in  the  ecclesiastical  annals  of  the 
older  centuries.  The  Rambler,  on  the  other  hand,  held 
the  view  that  the  Church  had  nothing  to  lose  and  much 
to  gain  by  meeting  facts  as  they  were." * 

The  refusal  to  face  the  facts,  the  resolve  to  manipulate 
them  in  the  interests  of  edification,  was  characteristic 
of  an  extensive  controversial  school  of  which  the  Dublin 
Review  was  a  vigorous  and  extreme  exponent.  It  was 
done  deliberately,  on  principle,  prompted  by  a  profound 
distrust  of  history.  Lord  Acton's  criticisms2  on  this 
uncritical  method  of  advancing  truth  are  inimitable. 

"  A  particular  suspicion  rested  on  history,  because,  as 
the  study  of  facts,  it  was  less  amenable  to  authority  and 
less  controlled  by  interest  than  philosophical  specula 
tion.  In  consequence  partly  of  the  denial  of  historical 
certainty,  and  partly  of  the  fear  of  it,  the  historical  study 

1  Gasquet,  Lord  Acton  and  his  Circle,  p.  xxxix. 

8  "  Ultramontanism,"  Home  and  Foreign  Review,  iii.  p.  173,  1863. 


ii8         OPPOSITION  IN   ENGLAND  [CHAP. 

of  dogma  in  its  original  sources  was  abandoned,  and  the 
dialectical  systematic  treatment  preferred." 1 

As  to  the  treatment  of  History:  "  First,  it  was  held, 
the  interests  of  religion,  which  are  opposed  to  the  study 
of  history,  require  that  precautions  should  be  taken  to 
make  it  innocuous  where  it  cannot  be  quite  suppressed. 
If  it  is  lawful  to  conceal  facts  or  statements,  it  is  equally 
right  to  take  out  their  sting  when  they  must  be  brought 
forward.  It  is  not  truth,  but  error,  which  is  suppressed 
by  this  process,  the  object  of  which  is  to  prevent  a  false 
impression  being  made  on  the  minds  of  men.  For  the 
effect  of  those  facts  or  statements  is  to  prejudice  men 
against  the  Church,  and  to  lead  them  to  false  con 
clusions  concerning  her  nature.  Whatever  tends  to 
weaken  this  adverse  impression  contributes  really  to 
baffle  a  falsehood  and  sustain  the  cause  of  truth.  The 
statement,  however  true  in  its  own  subordinate  place, 
will  only  seem  to  mislead  in  a  higher  order  of  truth, 
where  the  consequences  may  be  fatal  to  the  conscience 
and  happiness  of  those  who  hear  it  without  any  qualifica 
tion.  Words,  moreover,  often  convey  to  the  uninstructed 
mind  ideas  contrary  to  their  real  significance,  and  the 
interpretation  of  facts  is  yet  more  delusive.  .  .  .  For 
the  object  is  not  the  discovery  of  objective  truth,  but 
the  production  of  a  right  belief  in  a  particular  mind. 
...  It  is  the  duty  of  the  son  to  cover  the  shame  of  his 
father ;  and  the  Catholic  owes  it  to  the  Church  to 
defend  her  against  every  adverse  fact  as  he  would 
defend  the  honour  of  his  mother.  He  will  not  coldly 
examine  the  value  of  testimony,  or  concede  any  point 
because  it  is  hard  to  meet,  or  assist  with  unbiassed 
mind  in  the  discovery  of  truth  before  he  learns  what 
its  bearing  may  be.  Assured  that  nothing  injurious 
to  the  Church  can  be  true,  he  will  combat  whatever 
bears  an  unfavourable  semblance  with  every  attainable 
artifice  and  weapon."2 


1  "  Ultramontanism,"  Home  and  Foreign  Review,  p.  175. 

2  Ibid.  p.  177. 


x.]  LORD   ACTON'S  JOURNALS  119 

An  Anglican  writer  has  given  us  a  terse  expression  of 
the  same  idea :  The  Deity,  we  are  told,  cannot  alter 
the  past.  But  the  ecclesiastical  historian  can  and 
does.1 

With  all  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  the  Ultra 
montane  mistrusted  and  resented  the  historical  School. 
Cardinal  Wiseman  wrote  in  a  Pastoral2  a  severe 
denunciation  of  the  journal  which  Acton  edited.  To 
the  Cardinal,  the  Home  and  Foreign  Review  seemed 
characterised  by  "the  absence  for  years  of  all  reserve 
and  reverence  in  its  treatment  of  persons  or  of  things 
deemed  sacred."  He  wrote  with  great  severity  on  what 
appeared  to  him  its  "  habitual  preference  of  uncatholic 
to  Catholic  instincts,  tendencies,  and  motives." 

Acton  3  admitted  in  his  reply  that  "  a  very  formidable 
mass  of  ecclesiastical  authority  and  popular  feeling 
was  united  against  certain  principles  or  opinions  which, 
whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  are  attributed  to  us."  He 
then  proceeded  to  give  an  account  of  the  principles 
which  ought  to  govern  the  attitude  of  Catholics  towards 
modern  discoveries. 

"  A  political  law  or  a  scientific  truth  may  be  perilous 
to  the  morals  or  the  faith  of  individuals,  but  it  cannot 
on  this  ground  be  resisted  by  the  Church.  It  may  at 
times  be  a  duty  of  the  State  to  protect  freedom  of 
conscience,  yet  this  freedom  may  be  a  temptation  to 
apostasy.  A  discovery  may  be  made  in  science  which 
will  shake  the  faith  of  thousands,  yet  religion  cannot 
refute  it  or  object  to  it.  The  difference  in  this  respect 
between  a  true  and  a  false  religion  is,  that  one  judges 
all  things  by  the  standard  of  their  truth,  the  other 
by  the  touchstone  of  its  own  interests."4 


1  Inge,  Truth  and  Falsehood  in  Religion,  p.  41. 

2  Cf.  Bishop  Ullathorne.     Letter  on  the  Rambler,  1862,  p.  3. 

3  Acton,  History  of  Freedom,  p.  446,  «  Ibid.  p.  449. 


120          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

And  this  led  Acton  to  pronounce  a  severe  criticism 
on  methods  of  defence  prevalent  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  of  the  day.  He  said  that  in  reaction  from 
the  unscrupulous  attacks  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
a  school  of  apologists  had  arisen  dominated  by  the 
opinion  that  nothing  said  against  the  Church  could 
be  true.  Their  only  object  was  defence.  "  They  were 
often  careless  in  statement,  rhetorical  and  illogical  in 
argument,  too  positive  to  be  critical  and  too  confident 
to  be  precise."  "In  this  school,"  he  continues,  "the 
present  generation  of  Catholics  was  educated."  And 
he  complains  that  "  the  very  qualities  which  we  condemn 
in  our  opponents,  as  the  natural  defences  of  error,  and 
the  significant  emblems  of  a  bad  cause,  came  to  taint 
both  our  literature  and  our  policy/'  Meanwhile,  learning 
had  passed  on  beyond  the  vision  of  such  apologists,  and 
the  apologists  have,  so  far  as  effectiveness  is  concerned, 
collapsed  before  it. 

"  Investigations  have  become  so  impersonal,  so  colour 
less,  so  free  from  the  prepossessions  which  distort  truth, 
from  predetermined  aims  and  foregone  conclusions,  that 
their  results  can  only  be  met  by  investigations  in  which 
the  same  methods  are  yet  more  completely  and  con 
scientiously  applied." x 

Resort  to  suppressive  methods  is,  Acton  was  pro. 
foundly  persuaded,  suicidal  as  well  as  immoral.  It 
argues  either  a  timid  faith  which  fears  the  light,  or 
a  false  morality  which  would  do  evil  that  good  might 
come.  "  How  often  have  Catholics  involved  them 
selves  in  hopeless  contradiction,  sacrificed  principle  to 
opportunity,  adapted  their  theories  to  their  interest, 
and  staggered  the  world's  reliance  on  their  sincerity 
by  subterfuges  which  entangle  the  Church  in  the 

1  Acton,  History  of  Freedom,  p.  452. 


x.]  LORD  ACTON'S  JOURNALS          121 

shifting  sands  of  party  warfare,  instead  of  establishing 
her  cause  on  the  solid  rock  of  principles ! " l 

This  noble  appeal  was  unfortunately  denounced 
by  Bishop  Ullathorne  of  Birmingham  in  a  Pastoral 
wholly  devoted  to  its  refutation.  What  particularly 
disturbed  the  Bishop's  mind  was  the  distinction  which 
Acton  drew  between  a  true  and  a  false  religion :  that 
one  judged  all  things  by  the  standard  of  their  truth, 
the  other  by  the  touchstone  of  its  own  interests.  It 
appeared  to  Ullathorne2  that 

"to  say  that  the  Church  cannot  refute  or  object  to 
a  discovery  which  will  shake  the  faith  of  thousands  ; 
meaning  thereby  to  deny  her  right  to  examine  that 
discovery  after  her  own  methods,  and  by  the  union  of 
science  with  faith  in  her  theology,  to  ascertain  whether 
and  how  far  that  discovery  be  true,  ...  is  to  deny 
to  the  Church  her  mission  to  prove  all  things,  and  to 
hold  fast  that  which  is  good.  It  is  to  deny  her 
the  mission  of  teaching  to  avoid  oppositions  of  science 
falsely  so  called,  and  of  protecting  those  thousands  of 
souls  from  having  their  faith  shaken  by  the  erroneous 
deductions  which  men  of  science  are  too  apt  to  draw 
from  those  real  discoveries  which  can  never  conflict 
with  faith." 

Thus  was  Acton  misunderstood.  And  Bishop 
Ullathorne  concluded  by  condemning  the  journal  as 
"containing  propositions  which  are  respectively  sub 
versive  of  the  faith,  heretical,  approaching  to  heresy, 
erroneous,  derogatory  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church, 
and  offensive  to  pious  ears."3 

Notwithstanding  this  severe  rebuke  Acton  continued 
to  persevere. 

The  suppression  of  Lord  Acton's  brilliant  but  short 
lived  Home  and  Foreign  Review  ilustrates  the  restraints 


Acton,  History  of  Freedom,  p.  454.  2  Pastoral  (l%62\  p.  9. 

3  Ibid.  p.  42.     A.D.  1862= 


122          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

imposed  upon  an  independent  historian  by  the  necessity 
of  submission  to  the  opinions  of  Roman  Congregations, 
such  as  that  of  the  Index.  It  was  in  the  year  1863,  when 
his  periodical  was  some  four  years  old,  that  Pius  IX. 
issued  a  Brief  to  the  Archbishop  of  Munich  in  which  he 
affirmed  that 

"  it  is  not  enough  for  learned  Catholics  to  receive 
and  venerate  the  dogmas  of  the  Church,  but  there  is 
also  need  that  they  should  submit  themselves  to  the 
doctrinal  decisions  of  the  pontifical  congregations." 

This  Papal  Brief  made  no  reference  to  Lord  Acton 
or  to  the  Home  and  Foreign  Review^  but  it  vitally 
affected  the  principles  upon  which  that  periodical  had 
been  throughout  its  short  existence  of  four  years  con 
ducted.  For  its  principles  were  these : — 

"  To  reconcile  freedom  of  enquiry  with  implicit  faith, 
and  to  discountenance  what  is  untenable  and  unreal, 
without  forgetting  the  tenderness  due  to  the  weak,  or 
the  reverence  rightly  claimed  for  what  is  sacred.  Sub 
mitting  without  reserve  to  infallible  authority,  it  will 
encourage  a  habit  of  manly  investigation  on  subjects 
of  scientific  interest." 

This  means  a  claim  for  freedom  in  the  province  of 
opinion,  and  a  right  to  the  fearless  assertion  of  historic 
truth.  But  how  was  it  possible  to  reconcile  that  freedom 
with  the  literary  decisions  of  such  a  Congregation  as 
that  of  the  Index?  Consequently  Lord  Acton  wrote 
a  signed  article  in  the  Review,  bearing  the  significant 
title,  "  Conflicts  with  Rome."  It  is  written  with  admir 
able  self  -  command  and  dignity,  with  the  frankest 
confession  of  loyalty  to  truth  from  whatever  sources 
derived,  and  under  a  solemn  sense  of  the  impossibility 
of  reconciling  the  encroachment  of  Roman  Authority 
with  the  independence  essential  to  historic  science.  In 


x.]  LORD   ACTON'S  JOURNALS  123 

a  powerful  sketch  of  the  case  of  Lamennais,  he  shows 
how  the  extreme  assertion  of  unlimited  authority  easily 
led  by  reaction  to  total  loss  of  faith ;  and  how  the  dis 
paragement  of  human  reason  in  the  supposed  interests 
of  authority  really  undermines  the  foundation  upon 
which  all  things  human — that  authority  itself  included 
— must  necessarily  rest.  On  the  other  side  he  draws 
a  striking  picture  of  the  general  attitude  of  Roman 
authority  toward  modern  thought.  He  says,  that  in 
dealing  with  literature — 

"the  paramount  consideration  of  Rome  had  been 
the  fear  of  scandal.  Historical  investigations,  if  they 
offered  perilous  occasion  to  unprepared  and  unstable 
minds,  were  suppressed "  —  upon  which  he  remarks 
that  "the  true  limits  of  legitimate  authority  are  one 
thing,  and  the  area  which  authority  may  find  it  ex 
pedient  to  attempt  to  occupy,  is  another.  The  interests 
of  the  Church  are  not  necessarily  identical  with  those 
of  the  ecclesiastical  government.  One  of  the  great 
instruments  for  preventing  historical  scrutiny  had  long 
been  the  Index  of  Prohibited  Books,  which  was  accord 
ingly  directed,  not  against  falsehood  only,  but  particularly 
against  certain  departments  of  truth.  Through  it  an 
effort  had  been  made  to  keep  the  knowledge  of  ecclesi 
astical  history  from  the  faithful,  and  to  give  currency  to 
a  fabulous  and  fictitious  picture  of  the  progress  and 
action  of  the  Church.  The  means  would  have  been 
found  quite  inadequate  to  the  end,  if  it  had  not  been 
for  the  fact  that,  while  society  was  absorbed  by  con 
troversy,  knowledge  was  only  valued  so  far  as  it  served 
a  controversial  purpose.  Every  party  in  those  days 
virtually  had  its  own  prohibitive  Index,  to  brand  all 
inconvenient  truths  with  the  note  of  falsehood.  No 
party  cared  for  knowledge  that  could  not  be  made 
available  for  argument." 

This  suppression  of  uncongenial  fact  was  less  possible 
in  the  German  Universities,  where  the  Roman  Catholic 


i24          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

teacher  was  placed  amidst  perfect  freedom  of  enquiry, 
and  where  "  the  system  of  secrecy  or  accommodation  was 
rendered  impossible  by  the  competition  of  knowledge 
in  which  the  most  thorough  exposition  of  the  truth 
was  sure  of  the  victory."  The  teacher  in  this  environ 
ment  "was  obliged  often  to  draw  attention  to  books 
lacking  the  Catholic  spirit  but  indispensable  to  the 
deeper  student."  The  condition  of  things  in  Italy 
and  in  Germany  was  widely  different. 

"  While  in  Rome  it  was  still  held  that  the  truths  of 
Science  need  not  be  told  if,  in  the  judgment  of  Roman 
theologians,  they  were  of  a  nature  to  offend  faith,  in 
Germany  Catholics  vied  with  Protestants  in  publishing 
matter  without  being  diverted  by  the  consideration 
whether  it  might  serve  or  injure  their  cause  in  con 
troversy,  or  whether  it  was  adverse  or  favourable  to 
the  views  which  it  was  the  object  of  the  Index  to 
protect." 

Yet  for  a  while  Rome  had  tolerated  many  things. 
"  Publications  were  suffered  to  pass  unnoted  in  Germany, 
which  would  have  been  immediately  censured  if  they 
had  come  forth  beyond  the  Alps  or  the  Rhine." 
German  philosophers  were  indeed  denounced  at  Rome, 
but  German  historians  escaped  censure.  The  reason 
was,  according  to  Lord  Acton,  plain : — 

"The  philosopher  cannot  claim  the  same  exemption 
as  the  historian.  God's  handwriting  exists  in  history 
independently  of  the  Church,  and  no  ecclesiastical 
exigence  can  alter  a  fact.  The  divine  lesson  has  been 
read,  and  it  is  the  historian's  duty  to  copy  it  faithfully 
and  without  ulterior  views." 

But  this  toleration  of  independence  in  the  realm  of 
facts  was  now  abruptly  terminated  by  authority.  The 
Pope's  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Munich  affirmed 


x.]  LORD  ACTON'S  JOURNALS  125 

the  view  that  Catholic  writers  are  not  bound  only  by 
those  decisions  of  the  Infallible  Church  which  regard 
articles  of  faith.  They  must  also  submit  to  the  theo 
logical  decisions  of  the  Roman  congregations,  and  to  the 
opinions  which  are  commonly  received  in  the  schools  ; 
and  it  is  wrong,  though  not  heretical,  to  reject  those 
decisions  or  opinions. 

In  a  word,  therefore,  the  Brief  affirms  that  the  common 
opinions  and  explanations  of  Catholic  divines  ought 
not  to  yield  to  the  progress  of  secular  science,  and  that 
the  course  of  theological  knowledge  ought  to  be  con 
trolled  by  the  decrees  of  the  Index.  Confronted  with 
this  Declaration  of  Authority,  Lord  Acton  professed 
himself  resolved  "  to  interpret  the  words  as  they  were 
really  meant,  and  not  to  elude  their  consequence  by 
subtle  distinctions,  to  profess  adoption  of  maxims 
which  no  man  who  holds  the  principles  of  the  Review 
can  accept  in  their  intended  signification."  In  this 
Brief — "  It  is  the  design  of  the  Holy  See  not,  of  course, 
to  deny  the  distinction  between  dogma  and  opinion,  .  .  . 
but  to  reduce  the  practical  recognition  of  it  among 
Catholics  to  the  smallest  possible  limits." 

Consequently,  the  question  arose,  what  future  was 
possible  for  the  Home  and  Foreign  Review  ?  Continued 
existence  on  unaltered  principles  meant  reiteration  of 
principles  denounced  at  Rome. 

"The  periodical  reiteration  of  rejected  propositions 
would  amount  to  insult  and  defiance,  and  would 
probably  provoke  more  definite  measures ;  and  thus 
the  result  would  be  to  commit  authority  yet  more 
irrevocably  to  an  opinion  which  might  otherwise  take 
no  deep  root,  and  might  yield  ultimately  to  the  influence 
of  time." 

That  this  change  of  mind  on  the  part  of  authority 
would  be  anything  else  than  the  far-off  outcome  of  a 


126  OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND        [CHAP. 

process  indefinitely  slow,  Lord  Acton  did  not  for  a 
moment  suppose.  He  acknowledged  that  the  line 
taken  by  Pius  IX.  expressed  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  large  majority  of  Catholics  of  the  age.  And  in 
Lord  Acton's  view  of  the  case,  if  new  truth  is  to  gain 
recognition  from  authority,  it 

"  must  first  pervade  the  members  in  order  that  it 
may  reach  the  head.  While  the  general  sentiment  of 
Catholics  is  unaltered,  the  course  of  the  Holy  See 
remains  unaltered  too.  As  soon  as  that  sentiment  is 
modified,  Rome  sympathises  with  the  change.  The 
ecclesiastical  government,  based  upon  the  public  opinion 
of  the  Church,  and  acting  through  it,  cannot  separate 
itself  from  the  mass  of  the  faithful,  and  keep  pace  with 
the  progress  of  the  instructed  minority.  It  follows 
slowly  and  warily,  and  sometimes  begins  by  resisting 
and  denouncing  what  in  the  end  it  thoroughly  adopts. 
.  .  .  The  slow,  silent,  indirect  action  of  public  opinion 
bears  the  Holy  See  along,  without  any  demoralising 
conflict  or  dishonourable  capitulation.  This  action  it 
belongs  essentially  to  the  graver  scientific  literature  to 
direct." 

Meantime,  Lord  Acton's  lot  is  cast  in  the  period 
when  truth  is  resisted  and  denounced.  Hitherto  for 
bearance  has  been  extended  to  the  minority.  But  this 
is  the  case  no  longer.  "  The  adversaries  of  the  Roman 
theory  have  been  challenged  with  the  summons  to 
submit." 

"  In  these  circumstances,  there  are  two  courses  which 
it  is  impossible  to  take.  It  would  be  wrong  to  abandon 
principles  which  have  been  well  considered  and  are 
sincerely  held,  and  it  would  also  be  wrong  to  assail  the 
authority  which  contradicts  them.  The  principles  have 
not  ceased  to  be  true,  nor  the  authority  to  be  legitimate, 
because  the  two  are  in  contradiction." 


x.]  LORD   ACTON'S  JOURNALS  127 

Accordingly,  Lord  Acton's  practical  solution  is  as 
follows : — 

"  Warned,  therefore,  by  the  language  of  the  Brief,  I 
will  not  provoke  ecclesiastical  authority  to  a  more 
explicit  repudiation  of  doctrines  which  are  necessary 
to  secure  its  influence  upon  the  advance  of  modern 
science.  ...  I  will  sacrifice  the  existence  of  the  Review 
to  the  defence  of  its  principles,  in  order  that  I  may 
continue  the  obedience  which  is  due  to  legitimate 
ecclesiastical  authority  with  an  equally  conscientious 
maintenance  of  the  rightful  and  necessary  liberty  of 
thought." 

From  that  date  accordingly  the  Home  and  Foreign 
Review  ceased  to  exist.  The  expiration  of  a  periodical 
may  be  an  exceedingly  small  incident  in  literary 
activity,  but  the  principles  involved  in  this  incident 
are  of  primary  importance.  Lord  Acton's  indomitable 
belief  in  the  ultimate  prevalence  of  historical  truth, 
when  the  present  tyranny  of  ignorance  should  be  over 
past,  is  worthy  of  all  regard.  The  dignified  surrender, 
coupled  with  frank  reassertion  of  unaltered  conviction, 
is  most  significant.  He  bows  to  an  authority  which 
has  trangressed  its  limits,  and  which  rejects  to-day 
what  it  must  of  necessity  at  length  believe.  His 
theory  that  the  truth  must  pervade  and  possess  the 
members  in  order  that  it  may  reach  the  head,  must 
have  sounded  strangely  in  Italian  ears.  A  silence 
explicitly  self-imposed,  lest  authority,  if  further  pro 
voked,  should  commit  itself  irrevocably  to  positions 
fatal  to  its  own  best  interests,  is  impressive  and  pathetic  ; 
but  certainly  it  suggests  thoughts  on  the  limits  of 
authority  incompatible  with  Ultramontane  assump 
tions.  While  this  subsiding  into  silence  would  prevent 
the  irretrievable  mischief  of  imprudent  authoritative 
declarations,  it  would,  at  the  same  time,  delay  the 


128  OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND         [CHAP. 

enlightenment  of  the  ignorant  majority,  and  so  delay 
the  enlightenment  of  the  head.  Worse  still,  such 
silence,  if  widespread,  must  disable  the  Church  from 
meeting  the  needs  of  modern  thought,  and  from  coping 
with,  still  more  from  guiding,  the  educated  world. 
Wherever  the  system  of  secrecy  and  accommodation  is 
rendered  impossible,  by  the  competition  of  knowledge 
in  which  the  most  thorough  exposition  of  the  truth 
is  sure  of  the  victory,  there  such  methods  as  those 
advocated  in  the  Brief,  or  practised  in  submission  to 
its  dictation,  must  be  fatal  to  the  Church's  wider 
influence.  We  may  reverence  the  individual  self- 
suppression,  but  nothing  can  be  more  profoundly  dis 
couraging  than  the  fatal  conflict  of  authority  with 
historic  truth.  Even  Lord  Acton's  faith  could  only 
hope  that  authority  might  ultimately  acknowledge  the 
principles  upon  whose  suppression  it  was  for  the  present 
actively  engaged.  Thus  the  Church,  in  his  view,  was 
committed  to  a  fruitless  conflict  with  truths  to  which 
it  must  at  last  surrender.  It  was  destined  evermore  to 
oppose  all  truth  for  which  the  ignorance  of  the  majority 
precluded  recognition  ;  to  silence  its  prophets  and  here 
after  adorn  their  sepulchres ;  to  denounce  as  injurious 
what  it  would  one  day  embrace  as  true ;  if,  indeed,  the 
slowly  increasing  enlightenment  of  the  general  body  of 
the  devout  shall  ultimately  remove  the  prejudices  of  the 
head.  Certainly  the  prospect  was  scarcely  one  to  cheer. 
It  shows  impressively  the  tremendous  strain  which  the 
encroachment  of  authority  over  the  province  of  opinion 
placed  upon  the  faith  of  its  noblest  sons. 

Bishop  Ullathorne  viewed  the  successive  collapse  of 
Acton's  journals  with  a  natural  satisfaction. 

"  The   unsound   taint,"  he   wrote,  "  was    brought   to 
England  by  certain  young  laymen,  pupils  of  Dr  Dollinger 


x.]  LORD   ACTON  129 

or  others  associated  with  him,  and  exhibited  itself  in 
the  later  numbers  of  the  Rambler  after  it  passed  into 
their  hands,  in  the  Home  and  Foreign  Review,  the  North 
British  Review,  and  the  Chronicle.  But  the  Catholics 
of  this  country  repelled  the  poison,  and  these  publica 
tions  dropped  rapidly  one  after  another  into  their 
grave." 1 

Meanwhile,  on  the  other  side,  Ward's  ambition  was 
to  demonstrate  "how  extensive  is  the  intellectual 
captivity  imposed  by  God  on  every  loyal  Catholic."2 
And  there  is  no  possibility  to  doubt  which  of  the  two 
schools  was  congenial  to  Roman  authority.  For  the 
editor  of  the  Dublin  Review  was  rewarded  with 
expressions  of  papal  approval,  while  Lord  Acton's 
literary  ventures  were  one  after  another  brought  to 
untimely  ends.3  But  the  thing  that  flourished,  the 
work  upon  whose  eccentricities  and  extravagances 
Roman  authority  looked  with  favour,  was  the  Apolo 
getic  of  Ward  in  the  Dublin  Review.  Utterly 
unhistorical  as  it  assuredly  was,  more  Ultramontane 
than  Rome  itself,  carrying  recent  development  to 
unprecedented  excess,  and  exhibiting  exactly  those 
characteristics  of  wilful  blindness  to  uncongenial  facts 
which  roused  so  justly  Acton's  moral  indignation, 
Ward's  Essays  were  nevertheless  the  approved  and 
sanctioned  type  of  Roman  doctrine  and  Roman  defence 
offered  for  the  edification  and  guidance  of  Roman 
Catholics  in  this  land.  There  is  something  exceedingly 
tragic  in  the  suppression  of  Acton's  plea  for  sincerity 
and  moral  rectitude,  coupled  with  the  encouragement 
given  to  the  reckless  and  painfully  superficial  utterances 
of  the  Dublin  Review. 

The  English  Romanists  as  a  body  were  scared  by 

1  Expostulation ,  p.  5. 

2  Essays  on  the  Church's  Doctrinal  Authority,  pp.  20,  34. 

3  Cf.  Church  Times,  26th  July  1907. 


I3o  OPPOSITION   IN    ENGLAND        [CHAP. 

Ward's  extravagance.  And  to  none  were  his  methods 
more  repugnant  than  they  were  to  John  Henry 
Newman.  By  a  singular  grace,  Newman  escaped  the 
convert's  proverbial  temptation — that  of  carrying  new 
beliefs  to  all  possible  extremes.  He  had  affinities  with 
the  Dublin  Review  and  with  Lord  Acton's  Journals. 
But  he  was  keenly  conscious  of  the  defects  of  both. 
He  thought  the  one  lacking  in  regard  for  authority, 
;  the  other  in  reverence  for  fact.  He  was  very  far  from 
identifying  himself  with  either. 

When  Ward  attempted  to  enlist  Newman  in  his  Infalli 
bility  campaign,  Newman's  characteristic  sincerity  did 
not  attempt  to  conceal  the  repugnance  with  which  he 
viewed  the  proposal. 

"As  to  writing  a  volume  on  the  Pope's  Infallibility 
it  never  so  much  as  entered  into  my  thought.  I  am 
a  controversialist,  not  a  theologian,  and  I  should  have 
nothing  to  say  about  it.  I  have  ever  thought  it  likely 
to  be  true,  never  thought  it  certain.  I  think,  too,  its 
definition  inexpedient  and  unlikely ;  but  I  should  have 
no  difficulty  in  accepting  it,  were  it  made.  And  I 
don't  think  my  reason  will  ever  go  forward  or  back 
ward  in  the  matter."1 

But  Newman  despaired  of  inducing  his  fellow 
Romanists  to  attend  to  history. 

"  Nothing  would  be  better,"  he  wrote,  "  than  a 
•historical  review.  But  who  would  bear  it?  Unless 
one  doctored  all  one's  facts  one  would  be  thought  a 
bad  Catholic.  The  truth  is,  there  is  a  keen  conflict 
going  on  just  now  between  two  parties — one  in  the 
Church,  one  out  of  it ;  and  at  such  seasons  extreme 
views  alone  are  in  favour,  and  a  man  who  is  not 
extravagant  is  thought  treacherous.  I  sometimes  think 
of  King  Lear's  daughters,  and  consider  that  they,  after 

1  1866,  Thureau  Dangin,  iii.  p.  ill  ;  Purcell,  Manning^  ii,  p.  321. 


x.]  JOHN  HENRY   NEWMAN  131 

all,  may  be  found  the  truest  who  are  in  speech  more 
measured." l 

Hence  it  was  that  Ward's  vehement  and  exaggerated 
Ultramontanism  drew  down  upon  him  one  of  the 
severest  rebukes  which  Newman  perhaps  ever  wrote. 
He  told  Ward  that  it  was  wholly  uncatholic  in  spirit, 
and  was  constituting  a  church  within  the  Church. 
Ward  comically  observed  that  after  such  a  letter  he 
must  take  a  double  dose  of  chloral  if  he  meant  to 
sleep. 

Newman  also  wrote  a  reassuring  letter  to  Pusey, 
expressing  his  belief  that  there  was  no  fear  of  a  decree 
of  Papal  Infallibility,  except  in  so  limited  a  form  as 
practically  to  leave  things  as  they  were.2  But  when 
the  Vatican  Council  was  already  met,  and  the  pro 
babilities  that  the  dominant  party  might  succeed  in 
reducing  to  fixity  what  had  hitherto  been  a  theological 
opinion,  at  the  most,  became  more  and  more  convincing, 
Newman  wrote  to  his  Bishop  in  a  very  different  and 
very  anxious  strain  : — 

"Why  should  an  insolent,  aggressive  faction  be 
allowed  to  make  the  heart  of  the  just  sad,  whom  the 
Lord  hath  not  made  sorrowful  ?  I  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  it  is  God's  will  to  throw  back  the  times  and 
moments  of  the  triumph  which  He  has  destined  for 
His  kingdom,  and  I  shall  feel  that  I  have  but  to  bow 
my  head  to  His  inscrutable  Providence."  3 

1  See  Guardian  article,  6th  June  1906,  from  the  Month  of  January  1903. 

2  Life  of  Pusey y  iv.  p.  128. 

3  Standard^   7th  April   1870 ;   Salmon,  Infallibility,  p.    22 ;   Thureau 
Dangin,  iii.  p.  124. 


132         OPPOSITION    IN    ENGLAND  [CHAP. 

This  memorable  sentence,  the  most  memorable  of 
any  from  the  Roman  Communion  in  England,  was 
written  in  the  full  confidence  of  privacy  to  his  own 
Diocesan,  Ullathorne,  Roman  Bishop  of  Birmingham. 
Somehow  it  came  to  light,  and  appeared  in  the  public 
press.  The  publication,  never  explained,  has  been 
called  a  culpable  indiscretion.1  But  whatever  it  be 
called,  it  assuredly  represents  the  writer's  most  profound 
conviction,  uttered  with  perfect  frankness.  Here,  as  to 
his  Father  in  Christ,  he  reveals  his  soul.  Trusted  and 
confided  in  as  he  was  by  individuals  on  either  side 
within  the  Roman  body ;  by  Ward  and  Faber  on  the 
one  hand,  and  by  Lord  Acton  on  the  other  ;  profoundly 
intimate  with  modern  thought  and  religious  conceptions 
beyond  the  Roman  pale ;  he  anticipates  disastrous  con 
sequences  to  the  Church,  and  to  the  world,  if  the 
Infallibility  theory  be  decreed. 

Bishop  Ullathorne2  would  undoubtedly  receive  this 
confidence  with  perfect  sympathy.  For,  although  a 
believer  of  the  doctrine,  he  had  himself,  as  a  student, 
been  taught  the  opposite  at  Downside.  Indeed,  his 
own  fidelity  to  Ultramontane  ideas  was  so  challenged 
that  he  thought  it  advisable  to  seek  a  special  interview 
with  the  Pope,  and  assure  him,  at  the  time  of  the 
Vatican  Decrees.  But,  naturally,  Newman's  letter  not 
only  produced  a  great  sensation  when  it  appeared 
in  the  public  press ;  it  also  deepened  the  distrust 
with  which  the  partisans  of  Infallibility  regarded  him. 
We  can  well  understand  how  one  who  wrote  with 
so  manifest  an  anxiety  to  stand  by  the  historic  past, 
and  to  avoid  extremes,  was  regarded  with  suspicion 
from  Rome  by  pronounced  and  uncompromising 
Ultramontanes. 

1  Thureau  Dangin,  iii.  p.  124. 

2  Autobiography,  p.  41.     Cf.  Purcell,  Manning,  ii.  p.  439. 


x.]  MANNING'S  THEORIES  133 

As  always  in  great  movements,  so  with  the  doctrine 
of  Papal  Infallibility,  much  depended  on  commanding 
personalities.  And  no  figure  in  the  conflict  of  1870 
is  more  conspicuous  than  that  of  Archbishop  Manning. 
It  was  not  for  his  learning  or  intellectual  depth  or  piety 
that  he  held  so  remarkable  a  place  in  promoting 
Ultramontane  opinions.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that, 
whether  outside  the  Council  or  within,  he  arrested 
universal  attention.  No  man  was  more  completely 
:  identified  with  the  doctrine  than  he ;  and  identified 
with  it  in  its  extremest  form.  No  paradox  alarmed 
him ;  he  shrank  from  no  inference,  however  strange. 
Bellarmine  would  have  been  proud  of  him  as  in  many 
ways  a  worthy  successor  to  his  own  a  priori  methods. 
It  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  temperament  which  pro 
duced  the  two  famous  Pastorals  launched  by  Manning 
for  the  instruction  of  English  Romanists  in  1867  and 
1869. 

He  has  already,  and  this  is  very  significant,  formulated 
the  doctrine  practically  in  the  same  phrases  in  which 
it  appeared  in  the  Vatican  Decree :  "  Declarations  of 
the  Head  of  the  Church  apart  from  the  Episcopate 
are  infallible."1  "Judgments  ex  cathedra  are,  in  their 
essence,  judgments  of  the  Pontiff  apart  from  the 
episcopal  body,  whether  congregated  or  dispersed."2 

This  doctrine,  he  is  certain,  the  Church  has  always 
believed  and  taught.  History  awakens  no  doubts, 
creates  no  problems,  to  Manning's  mind.  Everywhere 
he  contemplates,  both  exercised  and  admitted,  papal 
inerrancy.  His  theory  is  that  the  stages  of  the  doctrine 
have  been  three :  simple  belief,  analysis,  definition.  In 
the  first  period,  belief  in  the  Church's  and  the  Pope's 
inerrancy  pervaded  all  the  world.  Thus  he  thinks  that 
the  condemnation  of  Pelagianism  by  Innocent  I.  (418) 

1  Pastoral  (1867),  p.  23.  2  Ibid.  (1869),  p.  142. 


134         OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND  [CHAP. 

was  regarded  as  infallible  from  the  first  moment  of 
its  promulgation.  As  for  Honorius,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  reason  for  misgivings  :  "  heretical  he  could 
not  be."  We  have  his  letters.  They  prove  his 
Catholicity.  The  papal  acts  of  the  primitive  ages 
imply  infallibility,  according  to  Manning,  "  and  in 
almost  all  cases  explicitly  declare  it." 1  The  exercise  of 
authority  is  everywhere  to  him  Infallibility.  Thus  the 
Archbishop  presented  the  English  Romanist  with  a 
sketch  of  the  first  ages  pervaded  by  a  calm,  unchallenged 
faith  in  the  Pope's  Infallibility. 

The  second  period  in  the  doctrine's  progress  is 
that  of  analysis  and  contention.  And  here  Manning 
pours  unqualified  contempt  on  the  Gallican  view. 
Gallicanism  was  Manning's  peculiar  and  special 
abomination. 

"  Gallicanism,"  he  said,  "  is  rationalism  ;  that  which  the 
Gospel  cast  out ;  that  which  grew  up  again  in  mediaeval 
Christendom.  Gallicanism  is  no  more  than  a  transient 
and  modern  opinion  which  arose  in  France,  without 
warrant  or  antecedent,  in  the  ancient  theological  schools 
of  the  great  French  Church ;  a  royal  theology,  as 
suddenly  developed  and  as  parenthetical  as  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  ;  affirmed  only  by  a  small  number  out  of 
the  numerous  Episcopate  of  France.  .  .  . 

"  To  this  may  be  added,  that  the  name  of  Bossuet 
escaped  censure  only  out  of  indulgence,  by  reason  of 
his  good  services  to  the  Church :  and  that  even  the 
lawfulness  of  giving  absolution  to  those  who  defend 
the  Gallican  Articles  has  been  gravely  questioned."  2 

In  Manning's  view  of  history,  Gallicanism  was  a 
disease  engendered  by  the  corruptions  of  the  old 
French  Monarchy. 

The  third  period  in  the  progress  of  Infallibility  is  the 

1  Pastoral  (1867),  p.  40.  2  Ibid.  p.  41. 


x.]  MANNING'S  THEORIES  135 

period   of  definition.     This   is  certain  to  come.     It  is 
merely  a  question  of  time. 

Thus,  according  to  Manning,  the  doctrine  of  Papal 
Infallibility  is  no  more  of  an  innovation  than  the 
doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  at  Nicaea.  It  is  true 
that  he  is  conscious  of  a  possible  objection  lurking 
in  suspicious  minds. 

"  If  any  one  shall  answer  that  these  evidences  do  not 
prove  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  speaking  ex  cathedra, 
they  will  lose  their  labour. 

"  I  adduce  them,"  he  continues,  "  to  prove  the  im 
memorial  and  universal  practice  of  the  Church  in 
having  recourse  to  the  Apostolic  See  as  the  last  and 
certain  witness  and  judge  of  the  Divine  tradition  of  faith." 

But  Manning's  real  interests  were  not  in  endeavours 
to  ascertain  what  history  declares.  The  sole  duty  of 
the  believer  was  absolute  submission  to  the  authority 
of  the  existing  Church,  irrespective  of  past  teachings. 
The  assumption  that  what  is  taught  to-day  corresponds 
with  what  always  has  been,  was  made,  and  must  not 
be  challenged.  Hence  the  famous  identification  of 
history  with  heresy,  for  which  Manning  made  himself 
responsible.  His  assurance  of  the  doctrine  is  so  un 
assailable  that  he  can  scarcely  tolerate  the  enquiry, 
Is  it  true  ? 

"  The  question  is  not,"  he  writes,  "  whether  the 
doctrine  be  true,  which  cannot  be  doubted  ;  or  defin 
able,  which  is  not  open  to  doubt ;  but  whether  such  a 
definition  be  opportune,  that  is,  timely  and  prudent." l 

Or  again,  more  emphatically  still  if  possible — 

"With  the  handful  of  Catholics  who  do  not  believe 
the  Infallibility  of  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  speaking 

1  Pastoral  (1867),  p.  119. 


136          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

ex  cathedra,  we  will  not  now  occupy  ourselves.  But 
the  opinion  of  those  who  believe  the  doctrine  to  be 
true,  but  its  definition  to  be  inopportune  deserves 
full  and  considerate  examination." 

That  the  doctrine  is  opportune,  said  Manning,  followed 
at  once  from  the  fact  that  it  was  true.  God  has  revealed 
it.  "  Can  it  be  permitted  to  us  to  think  that  what  He 
has  thought  it  opportune  to  reveal,  it  is  not  opportune 
for  us  to  declare  ? "  If  it  be  said  that  many  revealed 
truths  are  not  defined,  Manning  answers,  Yes,  but 
"this  revealed  truth  has  been  denied."  "  If  the  Infalli 
bility  of  the  visible  Head  of  the  Church  had  never  been 
denied,  it  might  not  have  been  necessary  to  define  it 
now."  Thus  the  prospect  of  a  coming  definition  is 
held  in  terrorem  over  the  heads  of  any  who  do  not 
silently  acquiesce  in  the  doctrine  being  taught.  Man 
ning  could  scarcely  ignore  the  fact  that  this  denial  of 
Infallibility  was  no  new  thing  in  the  Roman  Church. 
His  answer  to  this  is  equally  significant. 

"  We  are  told  by  objectors  that  the  denial  is  far  more 
ancient  and  widespread  :  that  only  makes  the  definition 
all  the  more  necessary." 1  "  In  England,  some  Catholics 
are  stunned  and  frightened  by  the  pretentious  assump 
tion  of  patristic  learning  and  historical  criticism  of 
anonymous  writers,  until  they  doubt,  or  shrink  in  false 
shame  from  believing  a  truth  for  which  their  fathers 
died."2 

One  would  like  to  know  how  this  sounded  to  the  old 
Catholic  families  of  England,  to  Bishops  such  as 
Errington  or  Clifford,  to  those  whose  fathers  had 
assured  the  English  Government  on  oath  that  Papal 
Infallibility  formed  no  part  of  the  faith  of  Catholics. 

Manning  indeed  saw  a  host  of  practical  reasons  why 

1    Pastoral (1867),  p.  40  2  Ibid.  p.  41. 


x.]  MANNING'S   THEORIES  137 

the  inerrancy  doctrine  should  be  decreed  :  because  this 
truth  has  been  denied  ;  because,  if  not  decreed,  the 
error  will  henceforward  appear  to  be  tolerated,  or  at 
least  left  in  impunity ;  because  this  denial  of  what 
Manning  called  "  the  traditional  belief  of  the  Church  " 
was  an  organised  opposition  to  the  prerogatives  of 
the  Holy  See ;  "  because  it  is  needed  to  place  the 
Pontifical  Acts  of  the  last  300  years,  both  in  declaring 
the  truth,  as  in  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Con 
ception,  and  in  condemning  errors,  as  in  the  long  series 
of  propositions  condemned  in  ...  Jansen  and  others, 
beyond  cavil  or  question  "  ;  because  it  was  openly  said 
that  the  pastors  of  the  Church  are  not  unanimous, 
therefore  "  it  is  of  the  highest  moment  to  expose 
and  extinguish  this  false  allegation,  so  boldly  and 
invidiously  made  by  heretics  and  schismatics  of  every 
name." 

The  dogma  was  necessary  also  to  justify  the  believer's 
attitude  toward  the  Pope.  Faith,  argued  Manning, 
requires  the  Infallibility  of  the  teacher  of  truth.  If  the 
teacher  be  fallible,  our  certainty  cannot  be  Divine.  If 
the  Pope  be  fallible,  we  cannot  be  certain  that  the 
doctrines  propounded  by  him — the  Immaculate  Con 
ception,  for  instance — are  of  faith.  "The  treatise  of 
Divine  Faith  is  therefore  incomplete  so  long  as  the 
Infallibility  of  the  proponent  is  not  fully  defined." 

Thus  a  theoretical  system  requires  completion  which 
nothing  but  this  dogma  can  give ;  for  which,  there 
fore,  this  dogma  must  be  created.  Moreover,  Manning 
scorns  what  he  calls  "  the  incoherence  of  admitting  a 
supremacy  and  denying  its  infallible  action."  We 
have  here  a  reminiscence  of  De  Maistre.  There  is 
the  same  theorising  tendency.  Two  dominant  ideas 
are  found  throughout.  The  one,  that  the  doctrine  is 
required  to  secure  the  completion  of  an  a  priori  view. 


138          OPPOSITION    IN    ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

The  other,  that  it  will  be  practically  a  singularly  use 
ful  asset.  Therefore  we  must  have  it.  It  is  not  the 
theologian,  it  is  the  ecclesiastical  statesman  who  speaks 
in  this.  The  centralisation  of  power,  concentrated  in 
one  supreme  individual,  easily  accessible,  prompt  to 
reply,  was  Manning's  ideal.  He  contrasted  it  with 
the  slow,  deliberate  method  of  Universal  Assemblies- 
Errors  would  have  time  to  spread,  with  fearful  rapidity, 
before  this  heavy  machinery  could  be  brought  effec 
tively  into  operation.  Statesmen  would  frustrate  its 
assembling.  If  the  Pope  be  personally  infallible,  apart 
from  the  Episcopate,  "  why,"  asks  Manning  quite 
naturally, 

"why  is  he  bound  to  take  a  means  which  demands 
an  Ecumenical  Council,  or  a  world-wide  and  protracted 
interrogation,  with  all  the  delays  and  uncertainties  of 
correspondence,  when,  by  the  Divine  order,  a  certain 
means  in  the  Apostolic  See  is  always  at  hand  ? " 

Assertion  —  vigorous,  uncompromising,  sweeping — 
was  not  only  the  bent  of  Manning's  disposition  ;  it  was 
also  cultivated  on  principle.  What  the  English  people 
wanted,  according  to  the  Archbishop  of  Westminster, 
was  neither  compromise  nor  accommodation.  "  Down 
right  truth,  boldly  and  broadly  stated,  like  the  ring 
of  true  metal,  wins  their  confidence."  When  Gladstone 
described  him  as  "  the  oracle,"  Manning  replied,  "  He 
shall  not  find  me  ambiguous."  Thus  he  prided  him 
self  on  the  quality  of  aggressive  speech.  Among  his 
favourite  phrases  is  the  term — "  it  is  certain."  Six 
times  in  one  page,  applied  to  all  manner  of  things — 
historical  interpretations,  future  probabilities,  indis 
criminately.  No  shade  of  distinction  exists.  There 
might  be  no  such  thing  conceivable  as  hesitation  in  the 


x.]  MANNING'S   THEORIES  139 

universe.     He  seems  to  grow,  if  possible,  increasingly 
sharp,  incisive,  uncompromising,  as  his  words  speed  on. 

"  The  Ultramontane  opinion  is  simply  this,  that  the 
Pontiff,  speaking  ex  cathedra  on  faith  or  morals,  is 
infallible.  In  this  there  are  no  shades  or  moderations. 
It  is  simply  aye  or  no." 

Of  qualifications,  of  restrictions,  nothing  is  said.  It  is 
all  sweepingly  universal.  Yet  with  all  his  heart,  he 
says,  he  desires  to  find  a  mode  of  conciliation — "but 
not  a  via  media  which  is  the  essential  method  of  false 
hood."  Of  the  philosophic  temper,  the  balancing  of 
opposing  truths,  the  holding  truths  unreconciled,  through 
faith  in  their  ultimate  yet  hitherto  undiscovered  syn 
thesis,  there  is  not  a  shadow  in  these  amazing  Pastorals. 

Nothing  can  surpass  the  confidence  with  which 
Manning  expressed  his  ideas  of  the  work  which  the 
Council  would  effect. 

"  It  is  certain  that  upon  a  multitude  of  minds  who 
are  wavering  and  doubtful  .  .  .  the  voice  of  a  General 
Council  will  have  great  power.  The  Council  of  Trent," 
he  tells  us,  "  fixed  the  epoch  after  which  Protestantism 
never  spread.  The  next  General  Council  will  probably 
date  the  period  of  its  dissolution." l 

Not  less  singular,  especially  when  read  in  the  light  of 
Manning's  incessant  polemical  correspondence  on  the 
doctrine,  is  the  picture  which  he  has  drawn  of  the  state 
of  the  Roman  Church  in  this  crisis. 

There  is  universal  excitement,  he  says,  in  the  outer 
world,  caused  by  the  assembling  of  the  Council  at 
Rome ;  "  not,  indeed,  within  the  unity  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  where  all  is  calm  in  the  strength  of  quiet  and 

1  Pastoral  (1867),  p.  90. 


140          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND          [CHAP. 

of  confidence,  but  outside  in  the  political  and  religious 
world  "  —  the  calm  of  the  Dublin  Review ',  for  instance, 
and  the  passionate  rhetoric  of  Ward. 

Manning  further  predicts  that  if  this  doctrine  were 
defined,  it  would  be  at  once  received  throughout  the 
world  with  "universal  joy  and  unanimity."  Nothing 
can  prove  more  clearly  than  these  words  how  com 
pletely  the  theory  with  which  he  was  identified  fired 
his  imagination,  and  warped  his  judgment. 

Manning  entirely  failed  to  carry  the  English  Romanists 
with  him.  The  English  Bishops  at  Rome  elected  Grant, 
not  Manning,  as  their  candidate  for  the  Commission  of 
Faith.  And  the  Archbishop  was  adopted  by  the  Italians. 
He  complained  of  his  English  colleagues,  that  "  of  those 
who  ought  to  have  defended  Infallibility  not  one  spoke. 
The  laity  were  averse  and  impatient.  They  would  not 
read."1  Some,  however,  did  read,  among  them  Lord 
Acton,  who  characterised  those  Pastorals  as  "  elaborate 
absurdities."  They  were  read  also  by  De  Lisle,  who  was 
amazed  at  Manning's  theory  on  the  case  of  Honorius. 

"  Archbishop  Manning  denies  that  Honorius  fell  into 
heresy,  but  in  denying  this  he  appears  to  me  to  injure 
the  Catholic  cause,  for  he  denies  history,  and  what  is 
worse,  sets  himself  up  against  a  General  Council  which 
is  universally  received,  and  which  in  this  very  particular 
was  solemnly  confirmed  by  Pope  Leo  II.,  Honorius's 
next  successor  but  one." 2 

Most  significant  is  the  contrast  of  type  between 
Manning  and  Newman  within  the  Communion  of  Rome. 

"  Manning,"  says  Thureau  Dangin,  "  like  other  con 
verts  in  the  ardour  of  their  new  faith,  and  in  reaction 
against  the  Protestant  spirit  from  which  he  had  escaped, 
considered  that  he  could  not  go  too  far  in  conceptions 

1  Purcell,  ii.  p.  454.  2  Life  of  De  Lisle,  ii.  p.  73. 


x.]  CONCLUSION  141 

designated  *  Ultramontane.'  The  personal  attractive 
ness  of  Pius  IX.,  who  manifested  a  fatherly  confidence 
in  him,  the  authority  which  thus  accrued  to  him  in  the 
government  of  the  Church,  the  storm  of  controversy 
before  and  after  the  Vatican  Council — all  confirmed 
him  in  this  attitude.  He  was  more  concerned  to  extend 
Infallibility  than  to  determine  its  limits.  He  seemed  to 
make  it  a  duty  of  conscience  and  a  point  of  honour  to 
offend  the  English  Catholics  by  presenting  in  uncom 
promising  terms  precisely  those  features  of  Italian 
doctrine  which  scandalised  them  most.  He  was  well 
aware  of  his  unpopularity,  and  consoled  himself  with 
an  application  of  the  text,  If  I  pleased  men  I  should 
not  be  the  servant  of  Christ." 

However,  Manning  pleased  men,  at  least  in  Rome, 
where  the  larger  sympathies  of  Newman  were  most 
distasteful,  and  where  a  hardy  official  went  so  far  as  to 
describe  him  as  more  Anglican  than  the  Anglicans,  and 
the  most  dangerous  man  in  England. 

Meanwhile  Manning  is  found  denouncing  the  English 
Jesuits  to  Rome  as  sympathisers  with  a  watered  version 
of  Catholicism.  Thus  the  Roman  Catholics  in  England 
were  being  thoroughly  schooled  in  Ultramontanism,  and 
the  Jesuits  themselves  Romanised  by  a  convert  from 
another  Church. 

The  conclusions  to  which  our  investigations  lead 
are :  that  the  Roman  Communion  in  England  during 
the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  was  Catholic 
in  sentiment  as  opposed  to  Ultramontane ;  that  the 
process  of  change  was  wrought  by  Italian  influence, 
imposing  Italianised  Bishops  upon  a  reluctant  com 
munity,  and  by  the  suppression  of  the  organs  of 
independent  thought,  especially  those  which  did  not 
revise  the  facts  of  history  in  the  interests  of  edification  ; 
that  this  conversion  of  the  Roman  body  to  Ultra 
montane  ideas  necessitated  a  rewriting  of  the  English 


142          OPPOSITION   IN   ENGLAND  [CH.X. 

Roman  literature,  which  was  done  on  a  very  extensive 
scale,  and  constantly  without  any  acknowledgment  of 
the  changes  introduced  into  the  author's  opinions ;  that 
this  process  of  infiltration  was  vigorously  resisted,  and 
continued  incomplete  down  to  the  Council  of  1870,  in 
which  Irish  and  English  Bishops  openly  opposed  the 
theories  of  papal  prerogatives  which  their  Italianised 
rulers  had  laboured  to  force  upon  them. 


CHAPTER   XI 

ULTRAMONTANISM   IN   FRANCE 

I.  A  POWERFUL  if  unintentional  contribution  to 
Ultramontanism  was  Napoleon's  reconstruction  of  the 
French  Episcopate. 

The  nineteenth  century  found  the  Church  of  France 
in  a  desperate  condition.  Overthrown  by  the  Revolu 
tion,  and  deprived  of  its  possessions  and  its  sanctuaries, 
many  of  its  Royalist  Bishops  were  refugees  in  England 
from  a  form  of  government  which  they  abhorred  ;  and 
the  Pope  himself  (Pius  VI.)  died,  a  captive  of  the 
Revolution,  in  French  territory  (I799).1  But  with  the 
new  century  Napoleon  rose  to  power.  He  saw  that,  in 
spite  of  the  dominant  Atheism,  France  was  Catholic  at 
heart ;  and  resolved  upon  a  restoration  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  Accordingly  he  sided  with  the  Papacy.  But 
since  the  exiled  prelates  were  notoriously  hostile  to 
the  Revolution,  being  zealous  adherents  of  the  old 
Monarchy,  he  was  convinced  that  their  readmission 
would  provoke  social  disorder  and  irreconcilable  strife. 
On  this  ground  he  required  Pope  Pius  VII.  to  make 
a  clean  sweep  of  the  entire  French  Episcopate,  either  by 
their  resignation  or  their  deprivation.2  This  was  to  be 
followed  by  a  complete  reconstruction  of  the  dioceses, 
and  reappointment  to  the  newly-constituted  Sees.  Fifty 

1  Jervis,  iii.  p.  323.  2  Ibid. 

'43 


i44    ULTRAMONTANISM  IN  FRANCE     [CHAP. 

diocesan  Bishops  were  henceforward  to  exist,  together 
with  twelve  Archbishops,  while  more  than  half  the 
ancient  Gallican  Episcopate  was  to  be  entirely  swept 
away.  Against  this  revolutionary  proposal  Pius  VII. 
protested,  but  he  protested  in  vain.  The  master  of 
France  was  inexorable,  and  Pius  was  compelled  to 
yield.  Cardinal  Consalvi,1  the  Papal  Secretary,  says  that 
he  vainly  urged  that  the  deposition  of  one  hundred 
French  Bishops  without  condemnation  was  unpre 
cedented  in  the  annals  of  Christendom,  that  nothing 
could  be  more  ruinous  to  the  famous  Gallican  liberties. 
But  the  iron  will  of  Napoleon  broke  through  all  re 
monstrances,  and  the  Pope  was  compelled  to  require 
the  French  Bishops  to  place  their  resignation  in  his 
hands.2 

Some  complied.  Some  delayed  and  temporised. 
Others  refused.  The  refugees  in  England  replied  that, 
holding  their  episcopal  commission  from  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  had  constituted  them  rulers  in  the  Church 
of  God,  they  could  not  submit  to  the  Pope's  require 
ments.3  Nevertheless,  their  existence  was  ignored, 
and  the  combined  power  of  Pius  VII.  and  Napoleon 
Bonaparte  carried  this  ecclesiastical  revolution  into 
effect. 

Napoleon  reserved  to  himself  the  right  of  appoint 
ment  to  the  newly  constituted  Sees.4  This  unpre 
cedented  act  of  supreme  authority5  was,  of  coursCj 
altogether  distinct  from  Infallibility ;  but  it  formed  a 
precedent  for  almost  limitless  submission,  and  promoted 
a  spirit  of  resignation  to  authority,  which  afterwards 
exhibited  itself  in  the  province  of  dogmatic  truth,  and 
contributed  indirectly  not  a  little  to  the  passing  of  the 

1  Consalvi,  Memoires,  i.  p.  345.  2  Jervis,  p.  363. 

3  Ibid.  p.  373.  4  Ibid.  p.  362. 

5  Lord  Acton  calls  it  "the  most  arbitrary  act  ever  done  by  a  Pope." 
—Hist.  Freedom,  p.  323. 


XL]   RECONSTITUTION  OF  EPISCOPATE  145 

Vatican  Decree.  It  also  shook  the  whole  constitution 
of  the  Church  of  France.  Its  effect  on  Gallican  ideas 
was  naturally  great. 

The  French  Minister  Ollivier  goes  so  far  as  to 
maintain  that  the  Roman  Court,  in  spite  of  its  persistent 
efforts,  would  only  have  secured  uncertain  advantage  if 
the  French  Revolution  had  not  come  to  its  aid.1 

But  still  down  to  1870  the  French  Government 
retained  in  its  control  the  right  of  nominating  the 
Bishops.  And  this  right  it  exercised  independently  of 
the  papal  desires.  Pronounced  Gallicans  were  elevated 
to  the  Episcopate  in  spite  of  Pius  IX.'s  objections.  At 
times,  when  his  concurrence  was  delayed,  pressure  was 
instantly  brought  to  bear  from  France.  And  that 
pressure  it  was  not  prudent  to  resist ;  for  at  that  period 
France  was  the  protector  of  the  Papacy. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  old  Gallicanism  perished 
in  the  French  Revolution.  This  is  misleading.  The 
Church  and  the  Monarchy  had  stood  together,  and 
the  overthrow  of  the  one  broke  the  power  of  the 
other.  In  the  altered  circumstances  the  papal  claim 
over  monarchs  became  practically  impossible.  It  was 
never  denied  at  Rome,  but  it  was  not  asserted.  It 
was  left  discreetly  in  the  background,  and  consequently 
the  old  Gallican  political  protest  became  meaningless. 
But  the  old  spiritual  principles  were  re-affirmed  in 
France  in  1820  by  Cardinal  de  la  Luzerne  with  not  less 
vigour  and  frankness  than  in  the  days  of  Bossuet 

The  independence  of  the  temporal  power  from 
papal  authority,  says  Cardinal  Luzerne,2  is  a  question 
which  he  does  not  intend  to  discuss.  Not  because  he 
has  the  slightest  doubt  upon  the  subject ;  on  the 
contrary,  the  complete  independence  of  the  temporal 
power  is  of  all  the  Gallican  maxims  that  to  which 

1  Ollivier,  i.  p.  280.  2  Works  (Migne's  ed.),  ii.  14. 

K 


146   ULTRAMONTANISM    IN   FRANCE     [CHAP. 

he  is  personally  most  strongly  attached.  He  deplores 
from  the  depth  of  his  heart  that  the  Popes  ever  asserted 
the  opposite  principle.  Their  pretensions  have  been 
disastrous  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  particularly  so 
to  the  Holy  See.  But  his  reason  for  not  discussing 
the  subject  is  that  the  Gallican  principle  finds  hardly 
any  opponents  even  in  Italy.  Since  Italian  writers 
do  not  attack  it  there  is  no  need  to  defend. 

But  on  the  question  of  Papal  Infallibility  he  feels 
constrained  to  express  his  strong  adhesion  to  the 
Gallican  doctrine.1  The  partisans  of  Infallibility  affirm 
that  when  the  Pope,  taking  the  necessary  precautions, 
speaks  officially,  he  is  infallible,  and  his  decisions  are 
unalterable  laws  for  all  the  Church.  That  is  the 
Ultramontane  opinion.  We,  on  the  contrary,  says 
Cardinal  Luzerne,  do  not  believe  the  Holy  Father  to 
be  infallible.  We  believe  that  when  he  acts  as  Pope 
his  decisions  ought  to  be  respected ;  but  his  dogmatic 
decrees,  however  worthy  of  regard,  are  not  infallible, 
and  only  exact  an  outward  submission,  but  not  an 
inward  assent  until  they  are  endorsed  by  the  accept 
ance  of  the  Universal  Church.  Papal  decisions  have 
weight — some  more,  some  less.  They  are  not  equal 
in  authority,  and  none  of  them  are  infallible.  The 
Ultramontane  system,  that  the  Pope  is  infallible  when 
he  speaks  officially,  sins  against  the  truth  in  the  essential 
point  of  novelty.2  Gallicanism,  if  it  had  a  political  side, 
was  essentially  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual.  Its  political 
interest  was  to  protect  the  rights  and  claims  of  a 
national  Church.  It  regarded  the  Church  of  each  people 
as  a  definite  entity,  although  of  course  merged  in  the 
unity  of  the  Universal  Church.  But  this  was  not  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Gallican  idea.  The  heart 
and  centre  of  their  contention  lay  in  the  rights  of  the 

1  Works,  ii.  p.  37.  2  Ibid.  p.  38. 


xi.]  CARDINAL   DE   LA  LUZERNE        147 

Collective  Episcopate,  as  contrasted  with  the  claims  of 
the  Papacy.  And  the  whole  of  the  struggle  which 
issued  in  the  Vatican  Assembly  of  1870  was  a  struggle 
between  these  two  conceptions  of  spiritual  authority. 

The  extent  to  which  the  old  Gallican  principles  pre 
vailed  in  France  of  the  early  nineteenth  century 
may  be  gathered  from  Bergier's  Theological  Dictionary, 
which  was  the  French  popular  encyclopedia  of  theo 
logy,  and  obtained  a  great  circulation. 

u  Infallibilist — The  name  sometimes  given  to  those 
who  maintain  that  the  Pope  is  infallible, — that  is  to 
say,  that  when  he  addresses  to  the  entire  Church  a 
dogmatic  decree,  a  decision  on  a  point  of  doctrine,  it 
cannot  happen  that  this  decision  should  be  false  or 
subject  to  mistake.  This  is  the  ordinary  opinion  of 
Ultramontane  theologians." x 

Then  after  summarising  Bossuet's  teaching,  the  article 
concludes  that,  since  it  is  an  essential  function  of  the 
pastors  of  the  Church  to  witness  to  the  universal  faith,  the 
witness  of  the  sovereign  Pontiff  taken  by  itself  cannot 
produce  the  same  degree  of  moral  certitude  which 
results  from  a  very  considerable  number  of  concurrent 
witnesses.  As  head  of  the  Universal  Church,  the 
sovereign  Pontiff  is  undoubtedly  well  informed  as  to 
the  general  belief  and  is  its  principal  witness ;  but  his 
witness,  united  to  that  of  a  vast  multitude  of  Bishops, 
possesses  quite  a  different  force  than  when  it  is  alone. 

2.  There  were  the  Ultramontane  writers  in  France, 
who  contributed  vastly  to  the  propagation  of  Roman 
ideas. 

One  of  the  pioneers  of  Ultramontane  development 
was  Joseph  de  Maistre.  Connected  for  some  time 

1  Bergier,  Dictionnaire  de  Thfrlogie  (1850). 


148    ULTRAMONTANISM  IN  FRANCE     [CHAP. 

in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  with  the 
Court  of  St  Petersburg,  he  had  all  the  instincts  of  the 
diplomatist ;  and  his  religious  ideal  was  to  see  modern 
Christian  society  under  the  absolute  control  of  the 
political  papal  dictatorship  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
Manning  once  ventured  the  remark  that  Gratry  was 
no  theologian.  It  has  been  said  with  far  more  accuracy 
that  De  Maistre  was  neither  an  historian  nor  a 
theologian,  but  rather  one  who  transferred  to  the 
province  of  ecclesiastical  control  the  principles  and 
methods  of  diplomatic  procedure.  He  was  a  man  of 
remarkable  vigour  and  pertinacity ;  a  man  of  logic  in 
his  way,  pushing  relentlessly  to  extreme  conclusions 
on  the  basis  of  a  brilliant  assumption ;  audacious  in  his 
assertions,  and  confident  with  an  unsurpassed  serenity. 

The  movements  of  modern  thought,  the  aspirations 
towards  larger  freedom,  were  to  De  Maistre  thoroughly 
repugnant. 

"  The  audacious  race  of  Japhet,"  he  writes,  "  has  never 
ceased  to  advance  towards  what  it  describes  as  liberty  ; 
that  is,  towards  a  state  in  which  the  governed  is 
governed  as  little  as  possible,  and  is  always  on  guard 
against  its  masters." 

Such  was  his  attitude  towards  European  progress 
and  development.  This  was  written  in  1844,  and  may 
doubtless  be  partly  explained  by  the  time ;  but  this 
was  the  spirit  in  which  he  approached  the  doctrine 
of  papal  authority.  And  the  method  in  which  he 
attempted  to  advance  the  Ultramontane  opinions  may 
be  gathered  from  such  examples  as  the  following. 

If  the  Gallican  School  set  the  Council  above 
the  Pope,  as  the  final  judge  in  matters  of  faith, 
De  Maistre  entirely  depreciates  the  significance  of 
Ecumenical  Councils.  His  estimate  of  their  value  as 


XL]  DE   MAISTRE  149 

compared  with  his  valuation  of  the  Papacy  is  almost 
contemptuous.  Councils  are,  in  his  view,  periodical  or 
intermittent  exhibitions  of  sovereignty.  They  are 
extremely  rare,  purely  accidental,  without  any  regularity 
of  recurrence;  easier  to  assemble  in  primitive  days 
when  the  extent  of  Christendom  was  comparatively 
small.  But  in  modern  times  an  Ecumenical  Council  is 
a  mere  chimera.  It  would  take  five  or  six  years  to 
arrange.  If  the  objection  is  made,  Why  were  all  these 
Councils  held  if  the  decision  of  the  Pope  sufficed  ?  De 
Maistre  adopts  for  his  reply  the  following — "  Don't  ask 
me;  ask  the  Greek  Emperors,  who  would  have  these 
Councils  assembled,  and  who  convoked  them  and 
demanded  the  consent  of  the  Popes,  and  raised  all  this 
useless  fracas  in  the  Church."  De  Maistre  goes  further 
still.  Quoting  the  opinion  of  Hume  on  the  Council  of 
Trent,  that  "  it  is  the  only  General  Council  which  has 
been  held  in  an  age  truly  learned  and  inquisitive,"  and 
"that  no  one  expects  to  see  another  General  Council 
until  the  decay  of  learning  and  the  progress  of  ignorance 
shall  again  fit  mankind  for  these  great  impostures " ; 
he  calmly  observes  that  while  in  its  spirit  this  is  a 
"  reflexion  brutale,"  yet  in  its  substance  it  is  worthy  of 
consideration.  Hume  is  right  to  this  extent :  that  "  the 
more  the  world  becomes  enlightened  the  less  it  will 
think  of  holding  a  General  Council."  The  world,  he 
adds,  has  become  too  great  for  General  Councils,  which 
appear  better  adapted  for  the  youth  of  Christianity. 
He  admits  that  a  Council  may,  indeed,  be  serviceable, 
and  that  perhaps  the  Council  of  Trent  did  what 
only  a  Council  could  do.  But  he  is  so  exceedingly 
jealous  of  its  possible  interference  with  the  absolute 
sovereignty  of  the  Pope  that  he  can  find  no  more  than 
this  in  its  favour;  except  to  conclude  this  portion  of 
his  remarks  with  a  curiously  incongruous  protestation  of 


ISO    ULTRAMONTANISM  IN  FRANCE     [CHAP. 

his  perfect  orthodoxy  on  the  subject  of  General  Councils. 
Thus  De  Maistre's  Ultramontane  proclivities  completely 
blinded  him  to  the  true  nature  of  this  form  of  Catholic 
self-expression.  We  should  not  gather  from  his 
depreciative  words  that  the  Spirit  of  God  had  anything 
to  do  with  the  Councils  of  Christendom.  It  is  singular, 
moreover,  that  a  leader  of  modern  Extremist  views 
should  have  written  in  this  strain  only  twenty-six  years 
before  the  Vatican  Council. 

De  Maistre's  treatment  of  the  case  of  Honorius  forms 
a  most  curious  psychological  study.  The  condemnation 
of  Honorius  by  a  General  Council  was  to  the  Gallican 
School  a  conclusive  proof  that  the  Church  which  so 
expressed  itself  knew  nothing  of  Ultramontane  opinions 
on  Papal  Infallibility.  De  Maistre  has  a  theory  which 
we  believe  is  entirely  his  own.  He  draws  from  imagina 
tion  an  account  of  what  Honorius  might,  from  an 
Ultramontane  standpoint,  be  expected  to  have  said  if 
he  had  been  living  at  the  time,  and  had  entered  into 
the  deliberations  of  the  Council  which  condemned  him. 
Here  is  the  speech  which  Honorius,  it  appears,  ought 
to  have  made  : — 

"  My  brothers,  God  has  undoubtedly  abandoned  you, 
since  you  dare  to  judge  the  Head  of  the  Church  who 
is  established  to  pass  judgment  upon  you.  I  have  no 
need  of  your  assembling  to  condemn  Monothelitism. 
What  can  you  say  that  I  have  not  said  already  ?  My 
decisions  are  sufficient  for  the  Church.  I  dissolve  this 
Council  by  withdrawing  from  it." 

De  Maistre  could  scarcely  forget  that  the  successor 
of  Honorius,  who  on  his  theory  ought  to  have  made 
some  protest  against  the  Council's  audacious  treatment  of 
their  predecessor,  omitted  to  make  any.  This  is  met 
with  the  remark  that  if  certain  successors  of  Honorius 


XL]  DE   MAISTRE  151 

do  not  appear  to  have  roused  themselves  against 
"  the  Hellenisms  of  Constantinople,"  their  silence  only 
proves  their  humility  and  their  prudence,  and  has  no 
dogmatic  weight.  The  facts  meanwhile  continue  what 
they  are.  The  fact  that  the  successors  of  Honorius 
for  centuries  went  on  reiterating  his  condemnation  is 
not  mentioned  by  De  Maistre.  But,  as  he  truly  says, 
the  facts  meanwhile  continue  what  they  are.  Yet 
he  implies  that  they  do  not.  For  he  then  suggests 
that  perhaps  the  Acts  of  the  Sixth  Council  have  been 
falsified.  The  possibility  of  such  dishonesty  in  ancient 
times  is  illustrated  from  the  letters  of  Cicero.  The  appli 
cation  is  then  delicately  left  for  the  reader  to  make. 
As  for  the  author,  "  Quant  a  moi,  je  n'ai  pas  le  temps 
de  me  livrer  a  1'examen  de  cette  question  superflue." 

De  Maistre's  argument  for  Papal  Infallibility  is  a 
political  argument  pure  and  simple.  All  true  govern 
ment  in  human  society  is  monarchy.  And  the  ultimate 
decision  in  the  political  order  must  be  regarded  as 
an  infallible  decision.  The  sovereign  power  cannot 
permit  the  laws  to  be  called  in  question.  What 
sovereignty  is  in  the  political  order,  the  same  is  infalli 
bility  in  the  spiritual.  We  only  demand,  therefore, 
for  the  Church  the  same  prerogative  of  finality  which 
we  demand  for  the  State.1 

Readers  of  Mozley  on  Development  will  remember 
his  crushing  reply  to  this  transparent  sophism. 

"It  is  indeed  absurd,"  writes  Mozley,  "to  expect 
that  the  mind  should  be  satisfied  with  it,  because 
what  the  mind  wants  is  to  believe  what  is  true ;  and 
this  argument  does  not  touch  the  question  of  truth 
or  error  in  the  doctrines  themselves  decided  on  by 
this  ultimate  authority.  It  tells  us  the  fact  that  they 
are  decided  on,  and  no  more.  It  views  the  Church 

1  Du  Pape,  p.  20, 


152     ULTRAMONTANISM  IN  FRANCE     [CHAP. 

simply  as  a  polity,  and  professes  to  apply  the  same 
principles  to  it  which  belong  to  other  polities ;  and, 
wholly  omitting  its  prophetical  office  of  teaching  truth, 
makes  it  impose  its  dogmas  on  us  on  the  same  principle 
on  which  the  State  imposes  Acts  of  Parliament."1 

This  contribution  to  Ultramontanism  received  a 
criticism,  also  from  the  Roman  Bishop  Maret,  just  on 
the  eve  of  the  Vatican  Council. 

"These  weaknesses,"  says  Maret,  "of  an  able  mind 
may  remind  us  that  the  true  seat  of  sovereignty  and 
infallibility  in  the  Church  is  not  to  be  reached  by 
logic  but  by  appeal  to  Scripture  and  Tradition.  Joseph 
de  Maistre  has  not  recognised  this  necessity.  If  he 
had  not  been  a  partisan  dominated  by  a  pre-conceived 
theory  based  on  insecure  foundations,  he  would  have 
realised  that  a  writer's  first  duty  was  to  make  a  careful 
study  of  the  General  Councils,  if  he  would  understand 
the  Church's  constitution.  And  this  he  has  most  in 
adequately  done."2 

Here  then,  said  a  contemporary  French  critic,3  we 
have  the  doctrine  of  infallible  authority  humanised  and 
rationalised.  But  the  contradiction  is  too  gross  to  permit 
this  solution  of  the  problem  to  be  taken  literally.  The 
tour  de  force  is  too  puerile.  We  decline  to  believe 
that  De  Maistre  was  altogether  duped  by  it.  It  is 
impossible  that  he  could  not  have  seen  the  huge  abyss 
which  separates  Infallibility,  as  the  Church  understands 
it,  from  civil  sovereignty  and  final  judicial  appeal. 
The  former  not  only  demands  submission,  but  assent, 
belief.  The  second  only  imposes  respect  and  exterior 
obedience,  without  involving  any  interior  conviction 

1  Mozley,  Essay  on  Development,  p.  126.  2  Maret,  ii.  p.  313. 

3  Revue  des  deux  Mondes  (1858),  p.  643. 


XL]  LAMENNAIS  153 

or  belief;  without  preventing  discussion,  contradiction, 
and  reversal  by  subsequent  legislation. 

The  ability  of  De  Maistre  is  everywhere  acknowledged. 
But  he  is  a  crowning  illustration  of  error  by  excess. 
He  is  afflicted,  as  the  same  critic  said,  with  the  malady 
of  logical  intemperance.  He  is  a  victim  of  his  own 
love  of  paradox.  His  passionate,  masterful  desire  to 
push  everything  to  the  most  extreme  conclusions  lands 
one  on  the  brink  of  an  intellectual  abyss  frightful  to 
contemplate.  He  escapes  with  acrobatic  agility  where 
in  all  reason  he  ought  to  fall,  and  would  fall,  if  his 
passion  did  not  sustain  him ;  where  certainly  calmer 
men  must  fall.1 

In  addition  to  De  Maistre,  there  was  Lamennais — a 
philosopher  rather  than  a  theologian ;  clever,  acute, 
impassioned,  rhetorical ;  a  sort  of  French  Tertullian. 
In  profound  mistrust  of  human  reason,  he  threw  him 
self  with  emotional  violence  into  the  work  of  exalting 
authority  as  the  one  refuge  and  salvation  against  error. 
Unbalanced  and  extreme  in  all  he  did,  he  ended  in  an 
equally  violent  reaction  against  the  very  authority 
which  he  had  laboured  to  exalt  But  the  moral  of  the 
change  was  lost  upon  his  countrymen.  Scandalised  by 
his  apostasy,  they  clung  to  his  earlier  ideals,  and  con 
tinued  to  maintain  what  the  master  had  forsaken. 
He  lived  in  discredit  and  died  in  distress,  after  mourn 
fully  witnessing  the  wide  extension  of  an  Extremist 
school,  which  he  had  devoted  his  best  years  to  create, 
but  was  totally  unable  to  restrain. 

3.  A  third  important  factor  was  the  political  pressure 
exerted  by  the  French  Government  upon  the  Church. 

1  Revue  des  detix  Mondes  (1858),  p.  630.  Cf.  Lenormant's  opinion  of 
Joseph  de  Maistre  :  "II  avait  plus  de  talent  que  de  science,  et  surtout  de 
bon  sens,  et  pour  ma  part,  je  ne  me  rangerai  jamais  parmi  ses  disciples." — 
Les  Origines  de  fHistoire^  i.  p.  67,  n. 


154    ULTRAMONTANISM  IN  FRANCE     [CHAP. 

The  influence  of  Napoleon  promoted  the  very  last 
thing  he  desired,  "  for  a  Church,  pinched,  policed,  and 
bullied  by  the  State,  was  inevitably  thrown  back  upon 
the  support  of  the  Papacy." l 

From  this  despotic  treatment  at  home  the  Church 
naturally  turned  its  eyes  towards  Rome.  Rome,  with 
its  troubles  and  misfortunes,  grew  more  dear.  A  whole 
school  of  deeply  religious  and  saintly  men  arose  in  France, 
filled  with  enthusiastic  devotion  to  the  See  of  Peter. 
Lacordaire — whether  defending  the  cause  of  religious 
education,  or  submitting  himself  to  an  adverse  decision 
from  Rome  when  his  master  Lamennais  broke  away, 
or  re-establishing  the  order  of  Dominicans  in  France, 
or  advocating  the  papal  authority  in  the  Cathedral 
at  Paris — produced  an  immense  effect  in  enlisting  the 
sympathies  of  men  with  Rome.  The  gifted  Montalembert, 
— eloquent,  imaginative,  threw  the  weight  of  his  power 
and  high  position  into  the  papal  cause,  and  became 
among  laymen  recognised  leader  of  Roman  interests. 
The  great  Bishop  Dupanloup,  warmest-hearted  of  men, 
impulsively  gave  the  movement  an  indiscriminating 
blessing,  and  brought  upon  himself  numerous  expres 
sions  of  papal  gratitude. 

None  of  these  were  far-sighted  men ;  none  of  them 
realised  in  the  least  the  ultimate  drift  of  the  authority 
they  so  powerfully  advanced.  Lacordaire  died  before 
the  question  of  Infallibility  came  within  the  council 
chamber  of  the  Church  ;  but  Montalembert  and  Dupan 
loup  alike  beheld  the  prospect  with  consternation, 
and  expressed  their  vehement  disapproval. 

4.  Another  element  which  is  said  to  have  contributed  to 
make  the  French  priests  as  a  body  largely  Ultramontane 
was  the  despotic  power  of  the  French  Episcopate.  Prob- 

1  Cf.  Cambridge  Modern  History.     French  Revolution,  ix.  p.  771. 


XL]     DESPOTIC   FRENCH   EPISCOPATE     155 

ably  no  Bishops  in  Christendom  were  such  autocrats  as 
the  French.  The  account  given  by  the  French  statesman 
Ollivier,  which  is  confirmed  from  other  sources,  represents 
the  ordinary  priest  as  subjected  to  a  virtual  slavery.  If 
the  despotic  power  of  the  French  Bishops  over  their 
priests  was  to  some  extent  moderated  by  piety,  yet 
anxiety  to  maintain  their  authority  constantly  issued  in 
acts  of  pitiless  severity.  The  greater  portion  of  the 
French  priests  were  dismissible  at  will,  without  judicial 
process,  or  adequate  opportunity  for  self-defence. 
Ollivier  considers  the  causes  of  dismissal  to  have 
been  frequently  quite  insufficient.  One  Bishop  alone 
removed  one  hundred  and  fifty  priests  in  a  single 
month,  and  the  State  declined  to  interfere.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  Pope  intervened.  He  took  the 
part  of  the  priests  against  the  Bishop,  and  asserted  the 
right  of  the  inferior  clergy  to  appeal  to  himself.  From 
that  moment,  says  Ollivier,  Ultramontanism,  hitherto 
forlorn  enough,  pervaded  the  mass  of  the  priesthood. 
Down-trodden  by  a  Gallican  Episcopate,  the  priest 
hastened  to  proclaim  the  infallibility  of  a  Pope  by 
whom  his  own  superiors  might  be  the  more  effectively 
controlled.  Ultramontanism  grew  to  be  a  passion  in 
the  clerical  world.  And  this  movement  from  beneath 
affected  the  Episcopate.  Either  they  were  driven  on 
by  the  force  of  the  stream,  or  left  stranded  without  the 
general  sympathy.  Ollivier  says  that  whereas,  in  the 
past,  men  spoke  of  Gallican  independence,  it  became 
a  commonplace  of  Vaticanism  to  speak  of  French 
docility.1 

5.  Another  impressive  step  in  the  direction  of  Papal 
Infallibility  was  taken  in   1854  by  Pius   IX.  when  he 

1  Ollivier,  i.  p.  300.     See  also  the  anonymous  pamphlet,  "  Pourquoi  le 
Clerge  Fransais  est  Ultramontane"  (1879). 


156  ULTRAMONTANISM  IN  FRANCE  [CHAP.  XL 

declared  the  theory  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  was  im 
maculately  conceived  to  be  a  dogma  of  the  Church.  This 
theory — rejected  by  St  Bernard  and  by  St  Thomas,  "a 
thesis  of  a  theological  school  of  the  Middle  Ages,"  opposed 
by  the  Dominican  order — was  pronounced  by  Pius,  on 
his  sole  authority,  not  with  the  concurrence  of  a  Council 
of  Christendom,  to  be  of  faith.  And  to  this  decree  the 
entire  Roman  Communion  submitted.  No  such  act  had 
occurred  in  the  Church  before.  And  although  this  act 
could  bear  constructions  not  involving  Infallibility,  for 
the  Gallican  might  ascribe  its  validity  to  the  tacit 
consent  of  the  Church,  yet  it  powerfully  promoted  the 
Infallibility  view ;  and  it  was  constantly  appealed  to  as 
a  practical  exercise  of  infallible  authority  and  a  justifica 
tion  for  the  Vatican  Decrees  of  1870. 

Thus,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church 
as  opposed  to  that  of  the  Pope  was  formerly  the  pre 
valent  belief  in  France,  as  the  independence  of  the 
Church  of  France  diminished,  the  authority  of  Rome 
increased.  The  pressure  of  episcopal  authority  over 
the  priests  led  the  latter  to  magnify  the  distant  authority 
of  the  Pope  as  a  balance  to  local  control ;  and  while 
the  Bishops  resented,  the  priests  desired  an  increase  of 
papal  power.  Meanwhile  the  Roman  See,  wherever 
practicable,  filled  places  of  influence  with  Ultramontanes. 
The  whole  weight  of  the  Jesuit  teaching  was  thrown 
unitedly,  persistently,  and  with  tremendous  force,  in  all 
these  schools  into  the  scale  of  Infallibility. 


CHAPTER  XII 

DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,  MARET,  GRATRY,  AND 
MONTALEMBERT 

THE  Archbishop  of  Paris  in  1870  was  Mgr.  Darboy. 
The  records  of  his  See  had  been  recently  a  series  of 
ghastly  tragedies.  His  immediate  predecessors  were 
Quelen,  Affre,  Sibour,  and  Cardinal  Morlot.  Only  the 
last  had  died  a  natural  death.  Affre  was  shot  on  the 
barricades,  and  Sibour  assassinated  by  one  of  his  own 
priests.  Darboy  himself  was  destined  to  be  added  to 
the  same  terrible  list.  He  was  shot  in  prison  during  the 
Commune  in  1871.  His  religious  sympathies  were  the 
reverse  of  Ultramontane. 

"  By  his  early  theological  training,  by  mental  tenden 
cies,  and  not  less  by  the  traditions  of  the  Diocese  and 
See  of  Paris,  Mgr.  Darboy,"  says  a  biographer,  "was 
devoted  to  the  ancient  principles  of  the  Church  of 
France." 1 

Darboy  strove  to  maintain  the  ancient  rights  and 
authority  of  the  Episcopate,  and  made  no  secret  of  his 
repugnance  to — nay,  he  openly  rejected — the  theory  that 
the  Roman  Pontiff  possessed  direct  and  immediate 
authority  over  every  separate  diocese.  And,  while  he 
was  a  strong  supporter  of  the  Pope's  temporal  power, 

1  Guillermin,  p.  124. 


158        DARBOY,  DUPANLOUP,   ETC.         [CHAP. 

he  held  to  the  time-honoured  principle,  that  no  papal 
document  could  be  published  in  France  without  State 
permission.  His  great  position  and  remarkable  gifts  of 
caution  and  self-control  made  him  a  power  to  be 
reckoned  with,  whether  in  France  or  at  Rome.  In  the 
Vatican  he  was  disliked  and  feared,  as  one  of  the 
strongest  obstructors  to  Ultramontane  conceptions. 
Napoleon  III.,  who  appointed  him  Archbishop,  requested 
Pius  IX.  to  raise  him  to  the  Cardinalate.  The  Pope 
would  neither  refuse  nor  consent.  But  he  gave  expres 
sion  to  his  disgust  in  a  private  letter1  to  Darboy, 
rebuking  him  in  the  severest  terms  for  holding  opinions 
injurious  to  the  papal  authority.  Darboy  replied,  with 
dignity  and  self-control,  that  he  had  no  desire  to  offend. 
But  he  gave  no  suggestion  of  any  change  of  mind. 
"  I  avoid  argument/'  he  wrote, "  because  I  do  not  desire  to 
argue  with  a  superior  on  the  basis  of  a  letter  containing 
inaccurate  statements  of  fact,  and  imparting  to  me  words 
which  I  have  not  spoken."  This  was  in  the  autumn 
of  1865. 

In  the  June  of  1867  the  Archbishop  went  to  Rome  in 
order  to  bring  about  an  understanding.  Shortly  after 
his  arrival  he  had  an  audience  with  the  Pope.  The 
audience  began  with  a  long  and  awkward  silence, 
interrupted  at  length  by  Darboy,  who  observed  that  he 
was  ready  to  hear  the  Pope's  orders,  unless  the  Pope 
preferred  that  the  Archbishop  should  speak  first.  Pius 
then  requested  Darboy  to  speak,  which  he  did,  explain 
ing  at  considerable  length  the  position  of  things  in 
his  diocese.  Pius  expressed  himself  contented ;  and 
Darboy  returned  to  Paris,  where  he  gave  an  account 
of  this  interview  to  his  assembled  clergy,  to  whom  he 
was  closely  united  both  in  opinion  and  sympathy. 

1  26th  October  1865. 


xii.]       THE   ARCHBISHOP   OF   PARIS        159 

However,  the  incident  was  by  no  means  closed.  In 
August  1868  the  Pope's  letter  of  1865  appeared  in 
a  Canadian  newspaper,  and  was  shortly  copied  and 
circulated  all  over  France.  The  effect  of  the  publica 
tion  of  one  of  the  severest  rebukes  which  a  modern 
Bishop  has  received  from  Rome  was  naturally  injurious 
to  the  Archbishop's  authority.  Darboy  expostulated 
with  Cardinal  Antonelli.  His  explanations  to  the  Pope, 
he  said,  appeared  sufficient,  if  not  complete.  At  any 
rate,  no  further  allusion  to  the  subject  had  been  made 
in  subsequent  correspondence  with  the  Holy  See. 
Darboy  had  left  Rome  with  the  impression  that  an 
understanding  was  secured,  or  the  subject  set  aside. 
And  behold,  suddenly  the  letter  of  1865  had  been 
drawn  out  of  its  privacy  and  thrown  into  full  publicity. 
Now,  since  the  letter  was  highly  unfavourable,  it  was 
clear  that  the  publication  was  not  his  doing.  The 
act  did  not  look  like  courage,  and  had  all  the  draw 
backs  of  indelicacy. 

Antonelli  replied  diplomatically  that  the  incident 
was  very  regrettable,  especially  since  the  motives 
prompting  this  exposure  could  hardly  be  described  as 
they  deserve.  But,  while  concurring  in  the  Archbishop's 
condemnation  of  the  act,  he  was  bound  to  add  that 
the  Pope  was  innocent  of  it  and  in  no  way  responsible. 
Darboy  considered  this  to  be  an  extremely  unsatis 
factory  evasion,  and  wrote  again,  indicating  that 
suspicion  attached  to  certain  officials.  Antonelli 
answered  that  the  officials  entrusted  with  correspond 
ence  at  Rome  were  above  suspicion.  He  admitted, 
however,  that  the  Nuncio  at  Paris  received  a  copy  of 
the  letter,  with  permission  to  show  it  to  the  French 
Minister  of  Worship  in  case  of  necessity.  It  was  not, 
however,  likely  that  he  had  availed  himself  of  this 
permission,  or  that  he  had  been  so  indiscreet  as  to 


160         DARBOY,  DUPANLOUP,  ETC.         [CHAP. 

publish  it.  Antonelli  suggested  that  possibly  the 
perpetrator  was  an  ecclesiastic  resident  in  Paris  ;  but 
how  a  copy  of  the  Pontifical  letter  could  have  been 
secured,  he  was  unable  to  explain. 

Expostulations  from  the  French  Government  failed 
in  eliciting  any  less  unsatisfactory  reply.  Vague 
suspicions  and  unproved  possibilities  were  all  that 
the  Archbishop  received.  No  real  apology  was  ever 
given ;  no  attempt  made  to  repair  the  mischief  done. 
But  sincere  relations  of  mutual  confidence  between 
the  Archbishop  and  the  Holy  See  were  made  from 
that  time  forward  exceedingly  difficult.  It  appears 
that  Manning  was  commissioned  at  Rome  to  intervene. 
He  visited  Paris  in  the  autumn  of  1868,  and  assured 
Darboy  of  the  Pope's  "paternal  sentiments"  towards 
him.  He  suggested  that  a  conciliatory  overture  from 
the  Archbishop  would  be  well  received  at  Rome. 
Darboy  declined.  After  Napoleon's  advocacy  of  his 
claims  to  the  Cardinalate  any  such  step  would  seem 
nothing  better  than  the  promptings  of  self-interest, 
Thus  the  Archbishop  reserved  unimpaired  his  freedom 
of  expression.  Before  leaving  Paris,  to  attend  the 
Vatican  Council,  he  gave  utterance  to  his  convictions 
once  again,  in  a  pastoral  letter  to  his  Diocese.1  Dealing 
with  disquieting  anticipations  of  coming  dogmas ;  new 
articles,  likely  to  be  imposed  on  Catholics,  which  hitherto 
no  man  had  been  required  to  believe ;  assertions  that 
the  minority  would  be  treated  as  an  opposition,  and 
speedily  suppressed ;  Darboy  seized  the  opportunity 
of  re-affirming  the  ancient  principles  : — 

"  If  the  Ecumenical  Council  orders  explicit  belief  in 
matters  hitherto  open  to  denial  without  charge  of 
heresy,  it  must  be  because  these  matters  were  already 

1  Eight  Months  at  Rome^  Appendix,  p.  268. 


XIL]       THE   ARCHBISHOP   OF   PARIS        161 

certain  and  generally  acknowledged.  For  in  these 
questions,  Bishops  are  witnesses  who  testify,  not  authors 
who  discover.  The  conditions  essential  to  an  article 
of  faith  are :  that  it  be  revealed  by  God  ;  and  that  it 
be  contained  in  the  Deposit  which  the  Christian 
centuries  have  faithfully  guarded  and  transmitted  one 
to  another  without  alteration.  Now  it  is  incredible 
that  five  or  six  hundred  Bishops  will  affirm  in  the 
face  of  the  world  that  they  have  found  in  the  con 
victions  of  their  respective  Churches  that  which  is  not 
there.  If,  then,  they  propose  in  Council  truths  to  be 
believed,  it  is  because  these  truths  already  exist  in 
the  evidence  of  Tradition,  and  in  the  common  instruc 
tions  of  Theology  ;  and  thus  that  they  are  not  something 


What  Darboy  meant  by  these  guarded  words,  and 
what  his  clergy  understood  him  to  mean,  is  beyond 
dispute.  The  theory  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  not 
contained  in  the  traditions  of  the  Diocese  and  See  of 
Paris.  The  contrary  theory  had  prevailed.  The  Arch 
bishop  went  to  Rome  with  a  full  intention  of  saying 
so — and  he  said  it. 

When  Darboy  arrived  in  Rome,  he  was  speedily 
admitted  to  an  audience  with  the  Pope.  He  was  one 
of  the  few  to  whom  this  privilege  was  given.  The 
Pope  had  decided  not  to  give  special  audiences  before 
the  Council  assembled.  But  the  Archbishop  of  Paris 
could  not  well  be  left  out.  The  very  security  and 
existence  of  the  Council  depended,  humanly  speaking, 
entirely  on  the  goodwill  of  France.  Accordingly  the 
Archbishop  of  Paris  had  to  be  received.  It  was  a 
difficult  interview.  Darboy  complained  of  the  publicity 
given  to  the  letter  of  1865,  which,  being  confidential, 
ought  never  to  have  been  yielded  to  general  curiosity, 
by  persons  surrounding  the  Pope.  Moreover,  the  letter 
contained  inaccuracies  and  errors.  The  Archbishop 

L 


162        DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.         [CHAP. 

said  that  he  had  refrained  from  a  public  defence,  partly 
from  reluctance  to  correct  the  assertions  of  his  spiritual 
chief,  partly  because  such  defence  would  be  open  to 
misconstruction  as  prompted  by  personal  ambition. 

The  Pope,  who  thoroughly  appreciated  the  allusion 
in  these  last  words,  replied  sympathetically ;  adding 
that  he  would  not  henceforth  believe  any  accusation 
against  the  Archbishop.  He  also  expressed  his  gratitude 
for  the  security  which  the  Imperial  protection  afforded 
him. 

2.  Dupanloup,  Bishop  of  Orleans,  was  in  the  year  1868 
at  the  height  of  his  reputation.  No  warmer  advocate  of 
papal  rights  existed  in  France.  In  youthful  fervour  he 
had  written  a  thesis  on  behalf  of  Infallibility,  a  theory, 
however,  which  he  had  long  since  abandoned  in  favour 
of  the  French  traditional  view.  That  which  more  than 
anything  else  had  confirmed  this  reversion  to  history 
was  the  issue  of  the  Syllabus  of  1864,  which  was  to 
his  mind  a  republication  of  obsolete  mediaevalism,  most 
unsuited  to  the  requirements  of  modern  thought.  For 
Dupanloup  was  in  keen  sympathy  with  modern  ideas  ; 
and  this  example  of  the  possible  exercise  of  unlimited 
authority  discouraged  and  alarmed  him,  as  indeed  it 
did  most  of  the  leaders  of  the  Church  in  France.  With 
this  disconcerting  fact  before  their  eyes,  nothing  could 
be  further  from  their  desires  than  to  extend  an  authority 
already  so  imprudently  exerted.  Distrust  of  infallible 
pretensions,  decided  preference  for  the  older  Gallican 
theory,  accordingly,  widely  prevailed. 

Dupanloup  had  no  suspicion  that  the  Vatican  Council 
would  determine  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility.  He 
was  able,  so  late  as  1868,  to  write  to  the  clergy  of  his 
diocese  a  glowing,  re-assuring  letter  on  the  coming 
assembly.  It  is  an  affectionate  pastoral  utterance,  whose 
logical  cohesion  must  not  be  too  closely  inspected.  He 


xii.]  THE   BISHOP  OF  ORLEANS         163 

is  persuaded  that  all  is  well,  and  he  says  so  in  various 
forms.  He  assures  his  clergy  that,  according  to  Catholic 
principles,  Bishops  united  in  council  with  the  Pope 
"decide  questions  as  witnesses  of  the  faith  of  their 
Churches,  as  judges  by  Divine  right."  He  is  con 
vinced  that  this  traditional  principle  will  be  maintained. 
Catholics  have  no  cause  to  fear.  A  Council  is  a  sublime 
union  of  authority  with  liberty.  This  will  be  illustrated 
in  the  coming  events  in  Rome.  He  appeals  with  im 
passioned  eagerness  to  the  separated  Eastern  Churches, 
and  to  the  Protestant  communities,  to  seize  this  golden 
occasion  for  unity.  In  his  glowing  vision  the  Council  is 
invested  with  all  the  graces  of  considerateness  and 
caution  :  it  becomes  the  means  of  re-uniting  Christendom 
— a  work  of  pacification  and  of  light. 

The  condition  of  the  Church  in  France  at  the  time 
when  the  assembling  of  the  Vatican  Council  was  pro 
claimed  may  be  partly  ascertained  from  some  extremely 
important  and  trustworthy  sources.1  Cardinal  Antonelli 
sent  a  circular  to  the  Nuncios  in  December  1868,  asking 
for  periodical  reports  on  the  attitude  of  Governments 
towards  the  Council ;  on  the  conduct  of  Bishops  relative 
to  the  same ;  on  the  general  bearing  of  non-Catholics ; 
on  the  opinions  of  the  Press,  books  and  pamphlets 
issued  upon  the  subject ;  and  on  the  desires  and  require 
ments  of  each  country.  The  Apostolic  Nuncio  in  Paris 
induced  four  ecclesiastics  privately  to  undertake  this 
task,  and  a  careful  and  elaborate  memoir  was  the  result. 
The  report  states  that  the  section  of  the  Press 
commonly  called  Ultramontane,  such  as  the  Monde 
and  the  Univers,  wrote  on  the  Council  daily,  but  offended 
many  by  their  general  tone  and  the  length  to  which 
they  went. 

The  French  clergy  are  described  as  pious  and  reciting 

1  Cecconi,  iii.  p.  187. 


164        DARBOY,   DUPANLOUP,  ETC.         [CHAP. 

their  breviaries,  but  in  education  poor.  As  to  the 
general  condition  in  France,  Catholics  are  divided  into 
two  classes :  Catholics  pure  and  simple,  and  liberal 
Catholics.  These  latter  are  the  object  of  preference 
to  the  Government.  They  fear  that  the  Council  will 
proclaim  the  dogmatic  Infallibility  of  the  Pope.  The 
assertion  circulates  that  if  the  Pope  is  declared  infallible 
it  will  be  necessary  to  change  the  language  of  the 
Creed  from  "  I  believe  in  the  Church "  to  "  I  believe 
in  the  Pope."  But  the  great  majority  of  Catholics 
submit  by  anticipation  to  whatever  the  Council  may 
proclaim.  They  admire  the  courageous  convocation 
of  the  Council  in  such  stormy,  revolutionary  times. 
They  do  not  conceal  from  themselves  that  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff,  by  a  sentiment  of  august  reserve,  may  not  desire 
to  take  the  initiative  in  a  matter  affecting  him  so 
personally.  But  they  hope  that  the  Fathers  of  the 
coming  Council  will  define  it  by  acclamation.  This 
report  was  sent  privately  by  the  Paris  Nuncio  to 
Cardinal  Antonelli  in  Rome.  To  the  astonishment  of  its 
four  compilers,  it  appeared,  substantially,  shortly  after, 
in  the  pages  of  the  Civilta  Cattolica,  the  more  or  less 
official  Roman  journal  under  Jesuit  influence.  This 
discovery  that  they  were  being  merely  utilised  as 
reporters  for  an  Italian  magazine,  and  that  their  con 
fidential  communications  were  published  in  print,  under 
the  heading  "  Correspondence  from  France,"  so  disgusted 
the  compilers  that  the  Nuncio  had  to  tell  Antonelli  that 
they  declined  to  continue.  They  feared,  not  unnaturally, 
that  recognition  of  authorship  in  France  might  lead 
to  serious  results  for  themselves.  This  article  led  to 
an  able  French  reply,1  which  accused  the  Roman 
publishers  of  having  printed  exclusively  in  the  interests 
of  the  Ultramontanes,  and  of  eliminating  everything 

1  By  Emile  Ollivier. 


XIL]  THE   BISHOP   OF   ORLEANS         165 

adverse  to  the  designs  of  a  certain  party  in  the  Church. 
They  had  issued  in  this  Italian  magazine  an  Ultra 
montane  manifesto  by  no  means  concurrent  with  the 
material  of  the  original  report.  The  article  in  the 
Civilta  Cattolica  does  not,  said  the  critic,  report  what 
actually  exists  in  France,  but  what  Rome  desires  to 
find  existing.  France  and  its  Government  are  persuaded 
that  the  opinion  of  sole  Papal  Infallibility  is  not  accepted 
by  the  vast  majority  of  French  clergy,  whether  priests 
or  bishops ;  and  they  have  the  right  to  hope  that  the 
Church  in  council  assembled  will  have  the  wisdom 
to  avoid  the  theme. 

But  this  pronouncement  of  the  Italian  journal  filled 
Dupanloup  with  consternation.  The  high  position  of 
the  journal  was  beyond  dispute.  The  vast  distinction 
between  its  definite  and  extravagant  utterances  and 
the  vague  generalities  of  the  Pope's  own  statement  was 
equally  obvious.  And  yet,  situated  as  they  were  in 
Rome,  could  the  editors  have  dared  to  publish  such 
assertions  if  entirely  destitute  of  official  recognition? 
Dupanloup's  grief  was  great.  Yet  for  a  time  he  was 
silent.  Meanwhile  a  storm  of  controversy  broke  out. 
Writings  for  and  against  Infallibility  appeared  in  all 
directions. 

The  Ultramontane  doctrine  was  defended  by 
Dechamps,  Archbishop  of  Mechlin,  afterwards  ap 
pointed  by  the  Pope  Primate  of  Belgium.1  The 
Belgian  Episcopate  was  small  but  united ;  only  six 
attended  the  Vatican  deliberations.  But  they  were 
altogether  Ultramontane,  being  appointed  direct  from 
Rome.  Dechamps  defended  the  theory  of  Papal 
Infallibility  chiefly  on  a  priori  grounds.  He  main 
tained  that  a  doctrinal  authority,  Divinely  established, 
ought  to  be  infallible.  Unless  it  makes  this  claim, 

1  May  1869. 


166         DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.      [CHAP. 

such  authority  cannot  be  Divinely  established.  For 
that  which  may  deceive  us,  or  leave  us  in  error, 
cannot  be  Divine.  He  endorsed  the  principle  of  De 
Maistre,  that  Infallibility  is  a  necessary  consequence 
of  supremacy.  One  who  pronounces  absolute  dogmatic 
decisions,  and  addresses  them  to  all  the  faithful  and 
the  entire  Catholic  Episcopate,  without  requesting  the 
consent,  either  direct  or  indirect,  of  the  Episcopate, 
but  rather  commanding  them  to  publish  and  carry 
out  his  decisions,  forbidding  them  to  infringe  them,  or 
rashly  oppose  them,  under  penalty  of  de  facto  excom 
munication,  is  personally  infallible.  Otherwise  his 
dogmatic  constitutions  are  a  tyrannical  usurpation  of 
the  rights  of  the  Episcopate.  And,  since  Dechamps 
does  not  admit  the  possibility  of  the  latter  alternative, 
he  reaches  quite  satisfactorily  his  own  conclusion. 

Thus,  to  the  Archbishop's  mind,  the  Infallibility  of 
the  Holy  See  is  an  indisputable  truth,  based  on  revela 
tion,  contained  in  the  written  and  traditional  Word  of 
God.  It  is  inseparably  bound  up  with  truths  which 
are  of  faith.  Venturing  into  the  department  of  history, 
the  author  believes  that  Pope  Honorius  miscalculated, 
through  inability  to  foresee  the  results  of  his  diplomatic 
endeavours,  but  committed  no  theological  error.  He 
insinuates  a  suspicion  that  the  Greeks  have  falsified 
the  Acts  of  the  Sixth  Council.  They  have  so  often 
done  this  sort  of  thing.  During  the  first  fourteen 
centuries  the  Infallibility  of  the  Papal  See  was,  accord 
ing  to  Dechamps,  never  called  in  question.  That 
Bishops  opposed  the  Pope,  he  admits.  But  only  those 
who  sided  with  the  Pope  constituted  the  Church.  The 
doctrine  is,  he  assures  his  readers,  incontestably  Catholic. 
A  man  can  be  a  heretic  in  the  sight  of  God  without 
being  so  in  the  sight  of  the  Church.  He  is  a  heretic 
if  he  rejects  a  truth  which  he  knows  to  be  revealed 


xii.]  BISHOP   MARET  167 

although  not  defined.  There  is  to  Dechamps  only 
one  truth  in  all  the  Gospel  affirmed  with  the  same 
superabundant  clearness  as  Papal  Infallibility,  and  that 
is  the  real  presence  in  the  Eucharist.  Do  not  therefore 
let  us  hesitate  to  define  this  truth,  which  forms  the 
basis  of  the  Divine  constitution  of  the  Church — a  truth 
which  Scripture  conclusively  reveals,  and  which  twenty 
centuries  have  glorified. 

This  treatise  was  highly  commended  at  Rome,  Pius 
himself  congratulated  Dechamps  on  the  sagacity  and 
erudition  with  which  he  had  refuted  the  cavils  of 
opponents. 

3.  Then  Mgr.  Maret,  Bishop  of  Sura,  published  his 
book :  probably  the  most  measured,  learned,  and  con 
ciliatory  statement  of  the  ancient  doctrine  which  the 
French  Church  had  seen  since  the  days  of  Bossuet. 

Maret's  two  scholarly  volumes  were  not  written  for 
the  multitude.  They  could  only  appeal  to  the  few. 
They  form  a  long  historical  treatise  on  the  relation 
between  the  Papacy  and  the  Episcopate.  History,  as 
understood  by  Maret,  shows  in  the  Church  a  monarchy 
limited  by  an  aristocracy :  a  Pope  regulated  by  Bishops. 
The  jurisdiction  of  the  Episcopate  is  not  derived  from 
the  Papacy  but  from  Christ.  Maret  disclaims  any 
intention  of  diminishing  the  real  prerogatives  of  the 
Apostolic  See : l  but  he  is  bound  to  assert  historic  truth. 
History  shows  that  there  were  Bishops  in  the  early 
Church  who  did  not  derive  their  jurisdiction  from 
St  Peter.  If  Antioch  can  be  traced  to  him,  the  Asiatic 
Churches  are  traced  to  St  John.  It  can  be  proved 
that  numerous  Bishops  have  held  their  mission  neither 
directly  nor  indirectly  from  the  Roman  See.  Their 
institution  is  not  by  Divine  right  an  exclusive  papal 
prerogative. 

1  Maret,  Le  Concile,  ii.  p.  9. 


1 68         DARBOY,   DUPANLOUP,  ETC.         [CHAP. 

Episcopal  jurisdiction  being  direct  from  Christ,  all 
Bishops  assembled  in  council  possess  an  equal  right. 
The  Infallibility  of  the  Church  is  collective,  not 
individual ;  not  to  be  sought  in  the  isolated  utterances 
of  the  one,  but  in  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the 
entire  Episcopate.  Bellarmine,  the  leading  advocate  of 
the  opposite  school,  is  implicated  by  his  theory,  accord 
ing  to  Maret,  in  insoluble  difficulties.  For  he  admits 
that,  for  an  utterance  to  become  infallible,  there  are 
certain  conditions  to  be  fulfilled,  such  as  serious  and 
prolonged  reflection  and  consultation  with  the  Pope's 
advisers.  If  these  were  neglected  the  result  would  be 
insecure.  But,  conscious  that  this  conditional  Infalli 
bility  diminishes  its  worth,  Bellarmine  asserts  that  an 
ill-advised  definition  is  impossible ;  since  the  Almighty, 
having  willed  the  end,  must  also  will  the  means.  The 
precarious  character  of  such  &  priori  constructions  is 
to  Maret  sufficiently  self-evident.  The  scriptural 
evidence  points  the  other  way.  Our  Lord,  says  Maret, 
did  not  cause  His  prayer  to  preserve  St  Peter  from 
a  lamentable  defect  of  faith :  for  God  respects  man's 
freedom.  At  the  most  solemn  hour  in  all  time — that 
when  the  mystery  of  universal  salvation  was  being 
accomplished — the  chief  of  the  Apostolic  College  denies 
his  Master  thrice.  If  he  quickly  recovered,  wept  bitterly, 
and  grew  deeper  in  love,  the  analogy  would  be,  not 
the  preservation  of  his  successors  from  defects  of  faith, 
but  their  speedy  recovery  ;  that  inconsistencies  in  papal 
decisions  should  be  transient,  and  not  permanently 
affect  their  loyalty  to  the  truth.  Whatever  may  be 
said  about  the  letter  of  Honorius,  what  is  absolutely 
certain  is  that  he  did  not  strengthen  his  brethren. 
Often  in  the  Councils  of  the  Church  a  papal  utterance 
has  been  placed  before  the  Bishops.  If  this  utterance 
were  in  itself  infallible,  the  only  reasonable  attitude 


xii.]  THE   BISHOP   OF  ORLEANS         169 

would  be  passive  obedience  and  blind  submission. 
This  is  not  the  attitude  of  true  judges,  such  as  the 
Bishops  have  been  traditionally  regarded. 

Maret  complains  that  the  doctrine  that  Infallibility 
resides  in  the  Collective  Episcopate  is  sometimes  dis 
paraged  as  Gallican ;  whereas  it  is  by  no  means 
restricted  to  the  Church  of  France,  although  it  possesses 
there  its  principal  exponents.  Modern  Ultramontanism 
is  to  Maret  a  lamentable  phenomenon,  greatly  pro 
moted  by  the  ill-regulated  influence  of  such  extremists 
as  Lamennais  and  Joseph  de  Maistre.  It  involves 
a  treatment  of  history  which  but  for  a  priori  theories 
would  be  inconceivable. 

In  the  midst  of  this  increasing  storm  Dupanloup 
wrote,  in  reference  to  his  former  vision :  "  Ah !  I  had 
drawn  an  ideal  of  a  Council  full  of  charity,  zeal,  and 
love :  and  behold,  all  of  a  sudden  appears  a  scene  of 
lamentable  disputes."  But  still  he  published  nothing 
until  Manning's  Pastoral  appeared,  and  that  provoked 
him  to  public  protest.  It  was  November  1869  when 
Dupanloup  circulated  his  Observations^  and  into  its 
pages  he  put  his  whole  mind  and  heart. 

It  was  natural,  said  the  Bishop  to  his  clergy,  that 
filial  piety  should  desire  to  adorn  a  father  with  all  gifts 
and  all  prerogatives ;  but,  congenial  as  these  instincts 
were  to  filial  piety,  the  definition  of  a  dogma  demanded 
other  considerations  than  sentiment.  Journalism,  in 
the  pages  of  the  Civilta  Cattolica^  had  assumed  the 
right  to  anticipate  theological  decisions ;  and  declara 
tions  of  faith  in  the  personal  and  separate  Infallibility 
of  the  Pope  were  being  elicited  from  the  most  simple- 
minded  and  unqualified.  It  was  actually  being  taught 
— the  reference  is  to  Manning  —  that  the  Pope  was 
infallible  "  apart  from  the  episcopal  body  whether  united 
or  dispersed."  In  reply  to  these  extremists,  Dupanloup 


170       DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.         [CHAP. 

did  not  reject  the  doctrine  categorically :  he  confined 
himself  to  the  assertion  that  its  definition  was  inoppor 
tune.  Yet  he  marshalled  such  an  array  of  difficulties 
and  objections  as  to  imply  much  more  than  the 
inopportuneness  of  definition. 

Dupanloup  declares  that  he  cannot  believe  that 
Pius  IX.  has  assembled  the  Council  to  define  his  own 
Infallibility.  This  was  never  mentioned  in  the  Pope's 
address  as  one  of  the  grounds  for  its  convocation.  The 
purpose,  according  to  Pius  IX.,  was  to  remedy  the  exist 
ing  evils  in  the  Church  and  in  social  life.  Was  it 
credible,  asked  Dupanloup,  that  in  the  midst  of  the 
many  urgent  problems  here  suggested  and  implied,  a 
novel,  unexpected,  and  profoundly  complex  and  thorny 
question  was  to  be  thrown  in  the  way,  to  ruin  the 
prospects  of  unity,  and  to  provide  the  world  with 
scenes  of  a  painfully  discordant  type?  Doubtless,  he 
continued,  men  would  assure  him  that  a  principle  was 
at  stake  : — 

"  A  principle  ! "  echoed  Dupanloup  ;  "  even  granting 
that  were  so,  I  answer,  Is  it  then  essential  to  the  life 
of  the  Church  that  this  principle  should  become  a 
dogma  of  faith  ?  How,  then,  explain  the  fact  that  the 
Church  has  lived  for  eighteen  centuries  without  defining 
a  principle  essential  to  her  existence  ?  How  explain 
the  fact  that  she  has  formulated  all  her  doctrine,  pro 
duced  her  teachers,  condemned  all  heresies,  without  this 
definition  ?  " 

Accordingly  the  Bishop  denies  that  there  can  be 
any  necessity.  It  is  the  Church  which  is  infallible,  he 
says,  and  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church  has  been  to 
this  hour  sufficient  for  all  religious  needs.  Dupanloup 
earnestly  recalled  the  Ultramontanes  to  earlier  principles 
which  long  prevailed  in  Christendom.  The  principle  to 
be  observed  in  defining  doctrine  is  that  given  by  Pius  IV, 


xii.]  THE   BISHOP   OF   ORLEANS          171 

to  the  Council  of  Trent :  Let  nothing  be  defined  without 
unanimous  consent.  Dupanloup  remembers  well  that 
when  he  was  in  Rome,  in  1867,  Pius  IX.,  in  discussing 
the  projected  Council,  was  most  solicitous  that  subjects 
which  might  divide  the  Episcopate  should  not  be 
brought  before  it.  And  in  a  recent  reply  to  some 
English  ministers  as  to  terms  of  reunion,  the  Pope  had 
spoken  of  papal  supremacy,  but  not  a  word  of  Infalli 
bility.  If  certain  journalists  still  proclaim  this  theory 
and  expect  to  intimidate  the  Bishops  into  silence, 
Dupanloup's  reply  is,  They  neither  know  Pius  IX.  nor 
the  Episcopate. 

Dupanloup's  transparent  sincerity  none  will  doubt. 
But  in  face  of  the  facts  at  our  disposal,  it  is  singular 
that  he  was  so  little  able  to  read  the  signs  of 
the  times,  or  to  estimate  the  forces  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Infallibilist  party.  It  is  clear  that  he  proposed  to 
go  to  Rome  totally  ignorant  of  the  issues  before  him, 
frankly  disbelieving  that  Infallibility  would  come  within 
conciliar  discussion.  It  is  clear  that  whatever  service 
he  had  rendered  to  the  papal  cause,  he  was  not  in  the 
confidence  of  Pius  IX.  But  that  this  doctrine  was  the 
deliberate  aim  for  which  the  Council  was  gathered  is 
probably  now  a  settled  conviction  with  serious  students 
of  history.  It  is  simply  incredible  that  so  far-sighted 
a  Curia  as  that  of  Rome  was  suddenly  led  by  impulse 
to  the  formulation  of  a  dogma  most  momentous  yet 
quite  unforeseen. 

If  Dupanloup  pronounced  the  dogma  of  Papal  Infalli 
bility  most  inopportune,  it  was  partly  because  he 
understood  sympathetically  the  conditions  of  religious 
life  outside  the  Roman  Communion,  and  knew  that 
nothing  in  the  world  could  be  less  calculated  to  win. 
He  wrote  most  forcibly  on  the  futility  of  inviting,  as 
the  Pope  had  done,  the  Oriental  Bishops  of  the  separated 


172       DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,  ETC.          [CHAP. 

Churches  to  attend  a  Council,  while  preparing  to  erect 
a  higher  barrier  than  ever  against  their  reception.  Could 
anything,  he  asks,  be  less  persuasive  than  this  ?  "  There 
is  already  a  division  between  us :  we  will  make  it  an 
abyss.  You  already  deny  the  Supremacy ;  we  require 
you  to  accept  the  personal  Infallibility ! "  Dupanloup 
is  aware  that  certain  recent  converts  ardently  desire 
this  doctrine.  But  he  knows  also  Protestants  desiring 
to  become  converts  whom  the  doctrine  will  effectively 
repel. 

But  it  is  in  reference  to  the  difficulties  which  the 
dogma  must  create  within  the  Communion  accepting 
it  that  Dupanloup  is,  perhaps,  most  impressive. 

1.  He  sees   that  grave   difficulties   must  attend  the 
attempt    to    distinguish    papal    utterances    which    are 
infallible   from   those   which   are  not.      What   are  the 
precise   conditions  of  an  utterance  ex  cathedral     It  is 
generally  assumed  that   all   pontifical  utterances  have 
not  this  character.     Does  it  depend  upon  external  con 
ditions,   such   as   the   person   or   body   to   whom    it  is 
directed,  whether  an  individual,  a  local  Communion,  or 
the   Universal    Church?      Is    it   subjected   to    internal 
conditions ;  and  if  so,  what  ?     Must  the  Pope  reflect, 
study,   pray,   take    counsel ;    if    so,   with   whom  ?      Or 
need  he  merely  speak  ?     Must  his  utterance  assume  a 
written  form,  or  will  verbal  message  be  enough?     Is 
the  Pope  infallible  if  he  addresses  the  whole  Church 
but  acts  under  intimidation  ?     And  if  fear  disqualifies 
infallible  deliverance,  does   not  also   perverseness,  im 
prudence,  passion?     Or  will   the   partisans   of  Infalli 
bility  say  that   the   Almighty  allows  the  former,  but 
miraculously  prevents  the  latter  ?     And  will  it  be  easy 
to  determine  what  constitutes  constraint  ? 

2.  Then  again  he  sees  historical  difficulties  in  the  way. 
The  definition  of  Infallibility  must  be  retrospective.     If 


xii.]  THE  BISHOP  OF   ORLEANS        173 

the  Pope  be  decreed  infallible  now,  it  follows  that  he 
must  have  been  equally  infallible  from  the  beginning. 
The  same  character  must  rest  on  all  decisions  across 
eighteen  centuries  complying  with  the  conditions 
essential  to  its  exercise.  Is  the  Council  to  make  the 
application  of  the  principle  to  the  past,  and  investigate 
this  theological  field  of  history.  Dupanloup  recoils  from 
the  prospect  of  such  investigations ;  nor  is  he  happy 
about  their  effect  upon  the  doctrine  itself.  Augustine 
taught  that,  after  the  judgment  of  Rome,  there  remained 
the  Council  of  the  Universal  Church.  This  affirms  the 
principle  that,  after  the  decision  of  the  Pope,  the  decision 
of  the  Church  is  essential  to  a  definition  of  faith.  And 
Dupanloup  manifestly  held  the  same. 

3.  But  difficulties  increase.  The  Infallibility  of  the 
individual  seems  inconsistent  with  the  Divinely  con 
stituted  function  of  the  Episcopate  as  judge  and  witness 
to  the  Faith.  The  whole  principle  of  the  Christian 
centuries  has  been  that  the  collective  testimony  of  the 
Episcopate  is  the  ultimate  expression  in  matters  of 
faith.  Bishops,  says  Dupanloup,  are  judges  as  to  what 
the  faith  really  is.  They  have  always  decided  in 
Councils  as  true  judges.  The  very  expressions  affixed 
with  their  signatures  prove  it.  "  Ego  judicans,  ego 
definiens,  subscripsi."  Such  was  the  formula.  Was — 
but  when  Dupanloup  wrote  these  sentences  he  had  not 
anticipated  the  introduction  of  a  novel  form  at  the 
Vatican  Assembly.  A  change  of  theory  is  appropriately 
accompanied  by  a  change  of  phrase.  Meanwhile  the 
Bishop  pursues  his  argument.  If  Papal  Infallibility  is 
independent  of  the  Episcopate,  then  the  essential  pre 
rogative  of  the  latter  would  be  done  away.  What 
defining  power  is  left  for  the  Bishops  to  exert  ?  They 
can  give,  we  are  told,  their  sentence  in  the  form  of  a 
simple  assent.  But  will  they  be  free  to  give  their  assent 


174       DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.         [CHAP. 

or  to  withhold  it  ?  Not  in  the  least.  They  will  be  under 
an  obligation  to  assent.  But  no  doctrine  would  depend 
on  their  assent.  For,  on  the  Ultramontane  theory,  the 
Pope's  decision  would  bind  all  consciences  of  itself, 
independently  of  all  episcopal  approbation.  But  in  that 
case,  how  could  it  any  longer  be  maintained,  as  it  has 
been  maintained  hitherto,  that  Bishops  are  real  judges 
as  to  what  is  of  faith  ? 

Dupanloup's  protest  and  adverse  criticism  on  the 
dogma  of  Infallibility  were  delivered,  as  may  readily 
be  believed,  with  profound  distress,  and  prompted  by 
nothing  but  a  painful  sense  of  duty.  He  says  that  he 
is  well  aware  of  the  hostile  constructions  which  will 
be  placed  upon  his  words,  of  the  disloyalty  with  which 
he  will  be  charged.  Yet  such  accusations  will  be  as 
untrue  as  they  are  unjust. 

"  I  dare  to  say,"  he  writes,  "  that  the  Church  of 
France  has  given  such  proofs  of  its  devotion  to  Rome 
as  give  it  the  right  to  be  heard,  and  the  right  to  be 
believed,  when  it  speaks  of  its  attachment  to  the  Holy 
See." 

And  he  brings  his  letter  to  a  close  with  words  of 
sanguine  expectation,  soon  to  be  piteously  refuted  by 
experience. 

"  I  am  persuaded  that  as  soon  as  I  have  touched 
that  sacred  land,  and  reverenced  the  tomb  of  the 
Apostles,  I  shall  feel  myself  far  from  the  battle  in  a 
region  of  peace,  in  a  midst  of  an  assembly  controlled 
by  a  father  and  composed  of  brethren." 

Dupanloup,  says  Quirinus  in  the  well-known  Letters 
from  Rome — 

"  attacked  the  opportuneness  with  such  a  powerful  array 
of  testimonies  in  his  famous  Pastoral  that  every  one 
saw  clearly  that  the  doctrine  itself  was  involved,  though 


XIL]  THE   BISHOP   OF   ORLEANS         175 

he  never  entered  in  so  many  words  on  the  theological 
question." l 

"  If  Dupanloup  says  that  he  does  not  discuss  Infalli 
bility  but  opportuneness,"  observes  a  shrewd  critic2 
writing  against  him  from  Rome,  "  yet  two-thirds  of  the 
letter  are  directed  against  Infallibility  itself;  for  if  the 
errors  ascribed  to  the  Popes  were  historic,  such  a 
definition  would  not  only  be  inopportune  but  false." 

Why,  then,  it  will  be  asked,  did  Dupanloup  conduct 
his  antagonism  on  the  basis  of  opportuneness  rather 
than  on  that  of  truth?  It  was  simply  because  the 
opponents  of  Papal  Infallibility,  the  German  Episcopate 
in  particular,  refused  to  commit  themselves  unanimously 
to  the  latter  position.  They  knew,  of  course,  that  they 
were  greatly  in  the  minority,  and  they  believed  that 
they  could  secure  a  numerical  strength  on  the  basis  of 
opportuneness,  which  they  could  not  expect  on  that 
of  explicit  rejection.  And  in  the  first  instance  their 
impression  was  correct.  The  position  served  its  purpose 
for  several  months.  It  drew  adherents  to  the  opposi 
tion.  "  It  provided  waverers  with  a  comparatively 
innocent  method  of  resistance."  3  It  left  an  easy  loop 
hole  for  escape  in  case  the  pressure  at  Rome  became 
too  strong.  It  gave  its  advocates  immunity  from 
graver  accusations,  to  which  they  would  be  liable  if  the 
doctrine  were  decreed.  It  would  be  safer  afterwards  to 
be  able  to  plead,  "  I  did  not  assert  its  falsity,  I  only 
thought  it  inopportune." 

But  however  much  the  plea  of  the  inopportune  might 
increase  at  the  beginning  the  party's  numerical 
strength,  it  involved  it  ultimately  and  fundamentally 
in  the  most  incurable  weakness.  The  plea  of  inoppor- 

1  Letters  from  Rome,  p.  255.          2  Nardi  in  Cecconi,  iv.  p.  544. 
3  Letters  from  Rome,  p.  255. 


176         DARBOY,  DUPANLOUP,  ETC.         [CHAP. 

tunism   is  in   the  long  -  run   an    untenable   plea.      As 
Quirinus  says : — 

"  A  minority  may  be  invincible  on  the  ground  of 
dogma,  but  not  on  that  of  expediency.  Everything 
can  be  ventured  to  oppose  a  false  doctrine,  but  not  to 
hinder  an  imprudent  or  premature  definition  of  a  truth." l 

It  laid  them  open  to  Manning's  retort,  "  When  was 
it  ever  inopportune  to  proclaim  the  truth  ? "  It  was 
the  acid  of  such  criticism  which  dissolved  the  apparent 
unity  of  the  opposition.  For  it  challenged  the  minority 
to  say  outright  whether  they  believed  the  doctrine  or 
denied  its  truth.  And  to  do  the  latter  in  Rome  under 
such  conditions  was  no  easy  thing.  Here  was  the 
fatal  weakness  by  which  the  opposition  came  to  grief. 
We  may  wonder  what  might  have  been  the  course  of 
events  had  the  opposition  taken  the  bolder  and  stronger 
line. 

Dupanloup  knew  perfectly  that  the  publication  of 
these  searching  criticisms  on  the  doctrine  proposed 
involved  nothing  less  than  the  sacrifice  of  his  popularity 
among  the  entire  Ultramontane  section  of  his  Church. 
That  however  he  could  bear  with  comparative  equa 
nimity.  Popularity  had  come  to  him  :  he  never  sought 
it.  But  what  distressed  him  greatly  was  that  his  action 
would  sadden  Pius  IX.  True  that  the  Bishop  expressly 
confined  himself  to  the  question  of  opportunism,  and 
that  he  pledged  himself  beforehand  to  accept  the 
Council's  decisions,  whatever  those  decisions  might  be. 
Nevertheless,  in  his  memorable  words,  "  I  go  as  a 
judge  and  a  witness  of  the  faith,"  he  had  formulated 
a  conception  of  the  episcopal  function  which  was  not 
only  ancient  and  world-wide,  but  irreconcilable  with 
the  theory  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

1  Page  256. 


xii.]         THE   BISHOP  OF   ORLEANS  177 

It  was  Dupanloup's  great  desire  to  be  supported  by 
Newman's  teaching  and  authority  ;  and  to  be  accom 
panied  by  him  as  his  theologian  at  the  Council  in 
Rome.  Newman,  however,  says  Thureau  Dangin,1 
declined  a  proposal  which  he  felt  would  displease 
Pius  IX.  But  the  Bishop  had  Newman's  perfect 
sympathy.  The  clergy  of  the  diocese  sent  him 
assurances  of  loyal  devotedness.  Montalembert  wrote 
in  fervid  terms  of  admiration.  And  Gratry's  famous 
incisive  letters  on  the  controversy  added  much  to  the 
intellectual  support  of  Dupanloup's  work. 

Dupanloup's  public  declaration  of  opposition  roused 
on  every  side  the  strongest  emotions.  Louis  Veuillot, 
journalist,  the  extreme  of  Ultramontanes,  editor  of  the 
Univers,  declared  this  attack  to  be  "  most  unexpected, 
and  more  important  than  any,  owing  to  the  position 
of  its  author." 2  It  was  to  his  mind  much  more  serious 
than  the  efforts  of  Dollinger.  The  Catholic  Bishop  had 
provided  poisonous  arguments  for  an  infidel  press. 
Dupanloup  penned  impulsively  a  vigorous  and  im 
passioned  reply,  in  which  he  applied  to  the  journalist 
the  title  given  in  the  Apocalypse  to  Satan — the  accuser 
of  the  brethren.  He  could  have  tolerated  Veuillot's 
personalities,  but  not  his  doctrinal  exaggerations.  From 
dogmatic  assertions  of  the  crudest  extremest  kind, 
which  had  appeared  in  his  pages  during  the  previous 
year,  the  Bishop  selected  the  following  examples : 
Veuillot  declared  that  Ecumenical  Councils  never  had 
so  much  authority  as  the  Decrees  of  the  Holy  See. 
Dupanloup  asks  whether  that  applies  to  the  Nicene 
proclamation  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  Veuillot  mis 
interpreted  the  text  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always  " — you 
collectively  (for  it  is  in  the  plural)  into  you  singular — 
that  is,  "  you,  the  Pope."  He  further  declared  that  when 

1  Correspondent,  loth  February  1906.  2  Cecconi,  iv.  p.  483. 

M 


178        DARBOY,   DUPANLOUP,  ETC.         [CHAP. 

the  Pope  thought  God  thought  in  him ;  that  the  Pope 
represented  God  on  earth ;  that  to  the  Pope  applied 
the  text,  "  This  is  my  God  and  I  will  praise  Him, 
my  Father's  God,  and  I  will  glorify  Him."  Veuillot 
further  declared  that  God  would  stone  the  human  race 
with  the  ddbris  of  the  Vatican. 

Whether  one  who  perpetrated  these  eccentricities 
of  doctrine  and  interpretation  and  prediction  could  be 
trusted  as  a  qualified  exponent  of  Catholic  truth  was 
to  Dupanloup  more  than  manifest.  But  nevertheless 
Veuillot  was  in  France  an  accredited  leader  of  the 
Ultramontanes,  a  fervid  champion  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

Dupanloup's  courageous  attitude  enlisted  the  devoted 
admiration  of  opponents  of  Papal  Infallibility.  No 
one  testifies  to  this  more  forcibly  than  Montalembert. 
Montalembert  —  who  curiously  combined  a  profound 
belief  in  mediaeval  legend  with  the  advanced  opinions 
of  the  liberal  politician,  denying  the  Church's  right  to 
employ  coercive  measures,  which  Rome  maintains,  yet 
advocating  vigorously  the  temporal  claims  of  the  Papacy 
— was  a  Catholic  of  the  ancient  type:  the  born  anta 
gonist  of  the  modern  Ultramontane,  while  yielding  to 
none  in  devotion  to  the  Roman  See.  But  his  admira 
tion  for  Dupanloup's  outspoken  words  svas  unbounded. 

"  No  doubt,"  wrote  Montalembert,  "  you  greatly  admire 
the  Bishop  of  Orleans,  but  you  would  admire  him  vastly 
more  if  you  could  realise  the  depth  into  which  the 
French  clergy  has  sunk.  It  exceeds  anything  which 
would  have  been  considered  possible  in  the  days  when 
I  was  young.  .  .  .  Of  all  the  strange  events  which  the 
history  of  the  Church  presents,  I  know  none  which 
equals  or  surpasses  this  rapid  and  complete  transforma 
tion  of  Catholic  France  into  a  vestibule  of  the  ante 
chambers  of  the  Vatican."1 

1  Lord  Acton,  Vatican  Council,  p.  58. 


xii.]  GRATRY'S   LETTERS  179 

4.  To  Dupanloup's  support  came  Gratry,  priest  of  the 
Oratory,  member  of  the  Academy,  Professor  of  Moral 
Theology  at  the  Sorbonne.  Gratry  is  certainly  one  of 
the  most  attractive  personalities  of  the  period.  A 
refined  and  beautiful  character,  tender  and  sympathetic  ; 
he  combined,  as  a  contemporary  acknowledged,1  the 
imagination  of  a  poet  with  the  gifts  of  a  metaphysician. 

Gratry's  famous  letters  attacked  the  Ultramontanes 
on  the  historical  side.  It  is  manifestly  essential  to  the 
Infallibilist  position  that  no  solitary  instance  should  be 
produced  of  a  Pope  officially  defending  heresy.  Gratry 
therefore  took  the  case  of  Honorius.  "  Heretical  he  can 
not  be,"  said  the  Ultramontane,  as  represented  by  Man 
ning.  "And  yet,"  replies  Gratry,  "he  was  condemned 
as  such  by  three  Ecumenical  Councils  in  succession." 

Here  is  the  language  of  the  first  of  these  : — 

Anathema  to  the  heretic  Cyrus. 
Anathema  to  the  heretic  Honorius. 
Anathema  to  the  heretic  Pyrrhus. 

Two  other  Ecumenical  Councils  repeated  this  con 
demnation  of  Honorius.  The  solemn  profession  of 
faith  recited  by  successive  Popes  for  centuries  on  the 
day  of  their  election  repeated  this  condemnation.  It 
was  mentioned  in  all  the  Roman  Breviaries  until  the 
sixteenth  century.  Then  a  significant  change  took 
place.  The  name  of  Honorius  disappears.  They  have 
simply  suppressed  his  condemnation.  These  things 
are  now  said  otherwise,  "  for  the  sake  of  brevity " ! 
The  Liber  Diurnus  contained  the  papal  profession 
of  faith.  "  As  Pope  Honorius  is  condemned  in  the 
profession  of  faith  of  the  new  Pontiffs,"  says  Cardinal 
Bona,  "it  is  better  not  to  publish  this  work."  "That 

1  Baunard,  Hist.  Card.  Pie,  p.  371. 


i8o         DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.        [CHAP. 

is  to  say/'  exclaims  Gratry,  "  behold  a  fact  which  over 
whelms  us.     Let  us  prevent  its  being  known." 

The  maxim  that  truth  may  be  suppressed  in  the 
interests  of  religion  roused  Gratry's  boundless  indigna 
tion.  Gratry  himself  had  heard  an  Italian  Prelate 
defend  on  this  principle  the  condemnation  of  Galileo. 

"Yes,  undoubtedly,"  said  the  Bishop,  "Galileo  was 
right,  and  his  judges  knew  perhaps  that  he  was  right ; 
that  he  had  discovered  the  true  laws  of  astronomy : 
but  at  that  time  this  too  dangerous  truth  would  have 
scandalised  the  faithful.  This  is  the  reason  they  con 
demned  him,  and  they  did  right." 

Gratry's  strenuous  protest  is  worth  recording : — 

"  Had  then  the  Catholic  religion — had  the  Word  of 
God — need  of  this  monstrous  imposture  in  a  solemn 
judgment?  O  ye  men  of  little  faith,  of  low  minds,  of 
miserable  hearts,  have  not  your  cunning  devices  become 
the  scandal  of  souls?  The  very  day  that  the  grand 
science  of  Nature  dawned  upon  the  world,  you  con 
demned  it.  Be  not  astonished  if  men,  before  pardoning 
you,  expect  of  you  a  confession,  penitence,  profound 
contrition,  and  reparation  for  your  fault." 

The  omission  from  the  Roman  Prayer  Book  of  historic 
facts  acknowledged  until  the  sixteenth  century  was,  to 
Gratry's  mind,  an  equally  miserable  illustration  of  inde 
fensible  principles.  "  Never  was  there  in  history  a  more 
audacious  forgery,  a  more  insolent  suppression  of  the 
weightiest  facts,"  The  systematic  suppression  of  facts 
antagonistic  to  the  Pope's  absolute  sovereignty  and 
separate  Infallibility  ought,  urged  Gratry,  to  prevent  us 
from  proclaiming  before  God  and  man  theories  supported 
by  such  a  method. 

"  This  was  the  reason  that  Dupanloup  had  spoken. 
From  God  he  will  receive  his  reward.  And  all  those 


xii.]  GRATRY'S   LETTERS  181 

who,  notwithstanding  these  arguments  and  these  facts, 
are  bold  enough  to  go  further  and  pronounce  judgment 
in  the  dark,  will  have  to  render  an  account  before  the 
tribunal  of  God.  Absolute  certainty  is  here  a  necessity. 
For  the  smallest  doubt  here  demands  by  Divine  right 
the  most  rigorous  forbearance." 

Louis  Veuillot,  the  journalist,  editor  of  LUnivers, 
criticised  Gratry  with  an  inimitable  mixture  of  worldly 
wisdom,  insolent  banter,  and  pious  resignation.1  He 
had  fondly  hoped  that  Gratry's  friends,  either  by  piety 
or  prudence,  would  have  diverted  him  from  an  enterprise 
which  could  only  issue  in  odium  or  ridicule.  However, 
needs  must  that  offences  come.  To  deny  Infallibility 
in  presence  of  a  Council  met  to  proclaim  the  unvarying 
faith  of  the  Church,  to  deny  it  by  attacks  on  the  Prayer 
Book,  was  a  masterpiece  among  mistakes.  Nobody 
ever  accused  Gratry  of  possessing  any  ecclesiastical 
learning  or  independent  power.  Loss  of  faith  explains 
many  things.  Needs  must  that  offences  come.  As 
to  the  contents  of  the  book,  it  was  Janus  rechauffe. 
Gratry  would  never  convince  the  human  mind  with 
his  Protestant,  Gallican,  free-thinking  ideas.  Gratry 
is  described  as  being  as  innocent  as  a  new-born  babe, 
as  having  studied  nothing,  read  nothing,  but  passion 
ately  advocating  what  others  have  told  him.  And 
yet  this  innocence  is  surprising  in  an  Academician, 
formerly  of  the  Oratory,  author  of  a  book  on  logic. 
This  innocent  is,  moreover,  a  priest.  Strangers  have 
brought  him  papers  which  say  that  his  Mother  has  told 
him  lies  ;  and  he  takes  them  for  angels  and  believes 
them.  But  Gratry  is  also  a  mathematician ;  and  all 
mathematicians  have  some  curious  twist  in  the  brain. 
Just  as  Laplace  the  mathematician  had  no  need  of 

1   Louis  Veuillot,  Rome  pendant  le  Concile>  p.  156. 


i82         DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.      [CHAP. 

the  hypothesis  of  God  in  his  world,  so  Gratry  the 
mathematician  has  no  need  of  the  hypothesis  of  the 
Pope  in  his  conception  of  the  Church.  Gratry  ought 
to  have  submitted  these  angels  who  instructed  him  to 
the  test  of  holy  water.  We  know  these  angels  of 
his.  One  of  them  is  called  Janus.  That  serpent  has 
deceived  the  dove.  Gratry  has  taken  Germanism  for 
science — just  as  it  came  from  Germany.  Inaccurate 
mathematician  !  Incurable  infancy ! 

So  Veuillot  railed  and  ridiculed.  And  Veuillot 
obtained  letters  of  papal  approval  for  his  defence  of 
the  faith. 

Gratry's  four  letters  were  read  with  avidity  through 
France ;  they  were  circulated  in  Rome,  and  translated 
into  English.  Four  editions  appeared  in  a  single  year- 
They  roused  the  keenest  emotions  on  either  side.  They 
were  denounced.  They  were  applauded.  Meantime 
the  shrewd  observer  wondered  what  the  end  would  be, 
should  this  controverted  opinion  become  translated  into 
the  province  of  necessary  belief.1  Episcopal  condemna 
tions  were  freely  issued.  The  Archbishop  of  Mechlin 
descended  to  personalities,  recommending  Gratry  to 
confine  his  attention  to  philosophy,  and  to  cease  to 
scandalise  Christendom  with  erroneous  ideas  and  out 
rages  against  the  Holy  See.  Another  Bishop  wrote 
in  terms  which  show  how  profoundly  men's  passions 
were  stirred,  that  the  Bishop  of  Orleans,  secretly  acting 
with  an  ability  worthy  of  a  better  cause,  had  only  too 
successfully  roused  both  cultured  and  popular  circles, 
disturbed  the  high  regions  of  diplomacy,  and  attacked 
the  hopes  and  convictions  of  the  Catholic  world. 
Dollinger,  Maret,  and  Dupanloup  were  a  triumvirate 
of  agitators,  to  whom  was  now  added  that  insulter  of 
the  Roman  Church,  the  Abb£  Gratry.2  The  Oratory, 

1  Cf.  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  57.  *  Acta,  p.  1425. 


xii.]  MONTALEMBERT  183 

anxious  for  its  safety,  repudiated  all  connection  with 
its  former  associate.1  The  unfortunate  priest  was  the 
victim  of  the  grossest  attacks  and  suspicions.  A  few — 
but  very  few — ventured  openly  to  support  him.  The 
Hungarian  Prelate,  Strossmayer,2  had  the  courage  to 
strengthen  him.  Strossmayer  had  read  Gratry's  defence 
of  Dupanloup  with  the  greatest  joy.  Fervid  indiscre 
tion  was  bringing  the  gravest  perils  upon  the  Church, 
and  the  crisis  called  for  the  most  energetic  resistance. 
May  Gratry  go  on  and  prosper!  But  such  Episcopal 
encouragements  were  few. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Bishop  of  Strasburg 
endeavoured  to  suppress  the  circulation  in  the  usual 
mediaeval  way.  He  condemned  the  letters  of  Gratry  as 
containing  false  propositions,  scandalous,  insulting  to  the 
Holy  Roman  Church,  opening  the  way  to  errors  already 
condemned,  rash,  and  bordering  upon  heresy.  He  pro 
hibited  the  reading,  circulating,  or  possession  of  these 
letters  either  by  clergy  or  faithful  in  his  diocese."3 

5.  Montalembert,  ruined  though  he  was  in  health  by 
an  incurable  malady,  was  roused  by  this  reticence 
among  the  men  who  secretly  approved,  and  came  to 
Gratry's  support.  "  Since  the  strong  do  not  support 
their  own  champion,"  said  Montalembert,  "the  sick 
must  needs  rise  from  their  beds  and  speak."4 

"  I  venture  to  say  that  you  will  not  find  ...  in  my  .  .  . 
speeches  or  writings  a  single  word  in  conformity  with 
the  doctrines  or  pretensions  of  the  Ultramontanes  of 
the  present  day ;  and  that  for  an  excellent  reason — 
which  is,  that  nobody  had  thought  of  advocating  them 
or  raising  them,  during  the  period  between  my  entrance 
into  public  life  and  the  advent  of  the  Second  Empire. 
Never,  thank  Heaven,  have  I  thought,  said,  or  written 

1  Ada,  p.  1382.  2  Ibid.  p.  1383. 

3  Ibid.  p.  1393  (February  1870).  4  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  63. 


1 84        DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.        [CHAP. 

anything  favourable  to  the  personal  and  separate  In 
fallibility  of  the  Pope  such  as  men  seek  to  impose 
upon  us."1 

"  How  was  it  possible,"  wrote  Montalembert,  "to  foresee 
in  1847  that  the  Liberalism  of  Pius  IX.,  welcomed  as 
it  was  by  Liberals  everywhere,  would  ever  become  the 
pontificate  represented  and  embodied  in  such  journals 
as  the  Univers  and  the  Civilta  ?  Who  could  possibly 
anticipate  the  triumph  of  the  theologian-advocates  of 
absolute  power ;  the  novel  Ultramontanism,  which, 
began  by  destroying  our  liberties  and  traditional  ideas, 
and  closes  by  sacrificing  justice  and  truth,  reason 
and  history,  wholesale  before  the  idol  which  they 
have  enstated  in  the  Vatican  ?  "  2 

If  this  word  "  idol "  appears  too  strong,  Montalembert 
would  appeal  to  a  letter  written  to  him  by  Mgr.  Sibour, 
Archbishop  of  Paris,  in  1853. 

"  The  new  Ultramontane  School,"  wrote  Archbishop 
Sibour,  "  involves  us  in  a  double  idolatry — an  idolatry 
of  the  temporal  power,  and  an  idolatry  of  the  spiritual. 
When,  like  myself,  you  made  strong  profession  of 
Ultramontanism,  you  did  not  understand  things  so. 
We  maintained  the  independence  of  the  spiritual  power 
against  the  exaggerated  claims  of  the  temporal.  But 
we  respected  the  constitution  of  the  State  and  of  the 
Church.  We  did  not  abolish  all  grades  of  power,  all 
ranks,  all  reasonable  discussion,  all  lawful  resistance,  all 
individuality,  all  freedom.  The  Pope  and  the  Emperor 
were  not  respectively  the  Church  and  the  State. 

"  Undoubtedly  there  are  occasions  when  the  Pope 
can  act  independently  of  all  regulations  designed  for 
ordinary  procedure ;  occasions  when  his  power  is  as 
extensive  as  the  needs  of  the  Church.  .  .  .  The  older 
Ultramontanes  were  aware  of  this,  but  they  did  not 
convert  an  exception  into  a  rule.  The  new  Ultra- 

\£      J  Montalembert's  letter,  Acta  Vatican  Council,  p.  1358. 
2  Acta,  p.  1386  (February  1870). 


xii.]  MONTALEMBERT  185 

montanes  have  pushed  everything  to  extremes,  and 
have  argued  extravagantly  against  all  independence, 
whether  in  the  State  or  in  the  Church. 

"  If  such  systems  were  not  calculated  to  compromise 
the  deepest  interests  of  religion  in  the  present,  and 
still  more  in  the  future,  one  might  silently  despise 
them.  But  when  one  forecasts  the  evils  which  they 
will  bring  upon  us,  it  is  hard  to  be  silent  and  to  submit. 
You  have,  therefore,  done  well,  sir,  to  condemn  them." 

Montalembert's  abandonment  of  the  Ultramontanes 
is  strikingly  described  by  Ollivier,  the  head  of  the 
Government  in  France.  According  to  Ollivier,  what 
Montalembert  sought  in  the  Ultramontane  propaganda 
was  simply  the  removal  of  civil  constraints  and  the 
liberty  of  the  Church.  But  when  men  sought  to 
impose  upon  him  the  Infallibilist  doctrines  of  Joseph 
de  Maistre,  whose  work  he  had  commended  without 
understanding,  he  found  that  he  had  unconsciously 
promoted  the  very  opinions  which  he  abhorred.  The 
absolute  monarchy  of  the  Pope  he  simply  disbelieved 
and  rejected.  Yet  he  saw  the  forces  which  he  had 
inspired  with  enthusiastic  devotion  to  the  Papacy 
advancing  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility.  Therefore 
he  gathered  what  strength  remained,  on  his  dying 
bed,  in  a  final  protest  against  any  such  decree.  He 
was  permitted  to  die  before  experiencing  the  necessity 
to  submit — Felix  opportunitate  mortis?- 

Pius  IX. 's  own  estimate  of  Montalembert  was  very 
severe.  He  described  him,  after  his  death,  as  only 
half  a  Catholic,  whose  mortal  enemy  was  pride. 

The  Italian  historian  of  the  Vatican  Council,  Cecconi, 
Archbishop  of  Florence,  is  more  just.  Cecconi  says  that 
those  who  knew  the  deeply  Catholic  sentiments  of 
Montalembert,  unfortunately  entangled  though  they 

1  Ollivier,  i.  p.  451. 


186       DARBOY,    DUPANLOUP,    ETC.         [CHAP. 

were  with  magnificent  Utopias  on  liberty,  will  not 
credit  him  with  uncatholic  extremes.  He  rendered 
to  the  Church  most  signal  services.  If  he  was 
sometimes  deceived,  this  was  due,  not  to  want  of 
intelligence,  but  of  theological  learning.  When  the 
alternative  lay  between  liberty  and  religion,  he  did 
not  hesitate.  "  I  love  liberty  more  than  all  the  world," 
he  said,  "  and  religion  more  than  liberty."  When  asked 
what  he  would  do  if  Infallibility  were  defined,  he 
answered  without  hesitation,  "  I  should  submit."  "  But 
how  would  you  reconcile  your  ideas  with  such  a  defini 
tion  ? "  "I  should  impose  silence  on  my  reasonings. 
If  my  difficulties  remained,  assuredly  the  good  God 
does  not  order  me  to  understand,  but  simply  to  submit, 
as  I  do  to  other  dogmas."  Such  was  an  Italian 
estimate.1 

Dupanloup  reached  Rome.  He  found  himself,  pre 
ceded  by  a  mass  of  hateful  incriminations  and  ridiculous 
calumnies.2  He  was  said  in  English  Roman  papers 
to  be  in  league  with  Napoleon  against  the  Holy 
See. 

Dupanloup's  generous  nature  was  profoundly  wounded. 
To  the  clergy  of  the  diocese  who  expressed  their  loyal 
sympathy  with  him,  he  replied  : — 

"  You  see  a  Bishop  who,  during  a  life  already  long, 
has  given  manifest  proofs  of  his  devotion  to  the  Church 
and  to  the  Holy  See ;  but  who,  because  one  day  in  a 
momentous  question  he  has  said  what  he  believed  to 
be  the  true  interest  of  religion  and  of  the  Papacy, 
becomes  suddenly  the  object  of  all  the  insults  and 
indignities  against  which  you  protest:  so  far  has 
passion  prevailed  where  it  ought  not  to  exist.  But 
what  does  it  matter?  There  are  in  life  hours  marked 
out  for  grave  and  painful  duties."3 

1  Cecconi,  ii.  p.  445.     Cf.  Foisset,  C.  de  Montakmbert,  p.  103. 

2  Lagrange,  iii.  p.  152.     Cf.  Tablet  (1869).  3  Ibid.  p.  153. 


xii.]  IN   ROME  187 

Dupanloup's  house  in  Rome  became  a  centre  of 
activity  for  the  Bishops  of  the  minority.  He  was  the 
animating  spirit  of  the  French  opposition,  while 
Darboy,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  was  the  controlling 
influence.1  The  French  Episcopate  possessed  no 
unity,  and  quickly  divided  into  two  opposing  parts. 
Endeavours  were  made  to  hold  them  together.  But 
the  two  French  Cardinals  represented  contrary  opinions. 
Cardinal  Mathieu,  Archbishop  of  Besangon,  was  a 
member  of  the  opposition.  But  his  conduct  manifested 
a  lack  of  qualities  essential  to  a  leader.  Cardinal 
Bonnechose,  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  on  the  contrary, 
was  a  decided  Ultramontane.  And  Pius  placed  him 
on  the  important  Committee  of  Suggestions.  So  the 
two  Cardinals  pulled  different  ways.  When  Cardinal 
Mathieu  laboured  to  unite  the  Bishops  of  the  French 
Church,  Cardinal  Bonnechose  adroitly  consulted 
Antonelli,  who,  acting  on  the  maxim  "divide  and 
conquer,"  advised  that  the  Pope  was  opposed  to  meet 
ings  of  larger  numbers  than  fifteen  or  twenty.  Cardinal 
Mathieu  consequently  left  Rome  in  disgust,  and  went 
to  spend  Christmas  in  Besancon.  However,  in  spite 
of  great  discouragements,  an  international  committee  of 
the  opposition  Episcopate  was  formed,  which  materially 
strengthened  their  forces. 

:  Lagrange,  iii.  p.  156 


CHAPTER  XIII 

OPPOSITION    IN    GERMANY — DOLLINGER 

IGNATIUS  VON  DOLLINGER  became  Professor  at 
Munich  in  1825.  In  a  mixed  University,  where  Pro 
testant  and  Roman  teachers  addressed  their  students 
in  close  proximity,  and  Schelling  taught  Philosophy 
while  Mohler  lectured  on  Symbolism,  and  Klee  on  the 
Fathers,  a  knowledge  of  modern  thought,  an  abandon 
ment  of  obsolete  methods,  became  natural  and  necessary 
among  Roman  Catholic  advocates.  The  stricter  Italian 
School  looked  with  grave  misgivings  on  these  Liberal 
tendencies  and  looser  ways.  But  circumstances  rendered 
this  larger  freedom  more  or  less  inevitable.  It  is  curious 
to  reflect  that  Dollinger  began  life  as  an  Ultramontane, 
under  the  influence  of  the  works  of  that  paradoxical 
extremist  Joseph  de  Maistre  ;  for  whom  Lord  Acton 
professed  a  distant  regard,  coupled  with  a  devout  deter 
mination  to  exclude  the  contributions  of  the  entire 
school  from  the  pages  of  his  journals.  Bellinger's 
change  from  the  Roman  to  the  Catholic  standpoint  was 
the  outcome  of  independent  critical  and  historical  study. 
Cold  and  critical  by  nature,  essentially  intellectual, 
he  was  endowed  with  enormous  vigour  and  insati 
able  desire  for  learning.  His  intention  was  to  write 
a  history  of  the  Papacy.  He  found  the  approaches 
choked  with  legend.  "  Many  of  these  were  harmless, 

1 88 


CHAP,  xni.]  DOLLINGER  189 

others  were  devised  for  a  purpose ;  and  he  fixed  his 
attention  more  and  more  on  those  which  were  the  work 
of  design."1  The  question  raised  by  the  mediaeval 
fables  of  the  Papacy  became  theologically  of  grave 
concern :  "  How  far  the  persistent  production  of  spurious 
matter  had  permanently  affected  the  genuine  constitu 
tion  and  theology  of  the  Church  ? "  From  the  fables, 
Dollinger  advanced  to  the  forged  decretals.  He  studied 
"  the  long  train  of  hierarchical  fictions  which  had 
deceived  men  like  Gregory  VII.,  St  Thomas  Aquinas, 
and  Cardinal  Bellarmine." 2  "  And  it  was,"  says  Acton, 
"  the  history  of  Church  government  which  so  profoundly 
altered  his  position."  Existing  ecclesiastical  develop 
ments  had  to  be  tested  by  the  past;  their  value 
disentangled  from  the  fictitious  elements  which  con 
tributed  to  produce  them.  The  famous  Canon  of 
St  Vincent  of  Lerins,  the  appeal  to  antiquity,  uni 
versality,  and  consent,  came  to  have  increasing  worth  in 
Dollinger' s  mind.  "  He  took  the  words  of  St  Vincent," 
says  Acton,3  "  not  merely  for  a  flash  of  illumination, 
but  for  a  scientific  formula  and  guiding  principle."  At 
first  insensibly,  but  more  and  more  definitely,  Dollinger 
diverged  from  the  axioms  of  the  Ultramontanes. 
Catholic  he  continued  to  be  throughout,  and  to  the 
very  last ;  but  historical  knowledge  seemed  to  him 
impossible  to  combine  with  the  popular  Roman  theories 
of  the  day.  Under  his  intellectual  rule  the  Munich 
School  acquired  immense  ascendancy.  It  became  the 
recognised  centre  of  ecclesiastical  learning,  Catholic  yet 
critical.  And,  above  his  colleagues,  Dollinger  became 
the  adviser  of  the  Church  in  Germany.4  Montalembert 
attended  lectures  there,  and  Acton,  rejected  at 


1  Acton,  History  of  Freedom,  p.  418.       2  Ibid.  p.  420.      3  Ibid.  p.  388, 
4  Goyau,  U Allemagnc  Religieuse,  ii.  p.  89. 


igo          OPPOSITION   IN   GERMANY         [CHAP. 

Cambridge,  found  a  home  in  Bellinger's  house  at 
Munich. 

The  theological  principles  of  Ignatius  von  Dollinger 
could  scarcely  be  in  the  year  1868  unknown  in  Rome. 
For  five  -  and  -  forty  years  he  had  been  a  teacher  in 
Ecclesiastical  History,  and  his  reputation  was  European. 
But  he  was  not  invited  to  take  any  part  in  the  theo 
logical  preparations  for  the  Vatican  Council.  An  Italian 
writer l  indeed  assures  us  that 

"in  the  number  of  those  whom  the  Pope  intended  to 
invite  was,  contrary  to  the  advice  of  some,  the  celebrated 
historian  Dollinger.  .  .  .  But  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  was 
informed,  on  the  authority  of  statements  perhaps  some 
what  inexact,  that  Dollinger  would  refuse  the  invitation  ; 
and  accordingly  Pius  IX.  did  not  give  effect  to  his 
intention." 

The  explanation  is  unconvincing  and  superfluous. 
The  presence  of  Dollinger  on  a  theological  commission 
in  Rome  at  the  Pope's  request  is  scarcely  thinkable. 
There  were  few  learned  members  of  the  Roman 
Communion  whom  Pius  IX.  would  welcome  less 
in  Rome.  But  the  minority  earnestly  desired  his 
presence.2  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg  wrote  to  Antonelli 
that  the  consulting  theologians  selected  for  the 
preparatory  commissions  were  not,  so  far  as  Germany 
was  concerned,  up  to  the  necessary  level.  Doubtless 
their  merits  were  considerable,  but  their  learning  was 
small.  They  were  not  qualified  to  do  justice  to  the 
difficult  problems  which  would  have  to  be  submitted 
to  them.  They  were  chosen,  so  far  as  the  dogmatic 
section  was  concerned,  exclusively  from  one  School. 
The  Universities  of  Munich,  Bonn,  Tubingen,  Fribourg, 
included  many  eminent  men,  who  were,  however, 

1  Cecconi,  ii.  p.  329.  2  Ibid.  li.  p.  331. 


XIIL]  DOLLINGER  191 

omitted,  much  to  Schwarzenberg's  astonishment.  He 
noted  in  particular  the  absence  of  Hefele  and  Dollinger. 
But  while  Schwarzenberg  wrote  in  this  honest,  impulsive 
way,  Antonelli  was  in  receipt  of  letters  of  another  type 
from  the  Bavarian  Nuncio,  Meglia.  According  to  the 
Nuncio,  among  the  more  hopeful  and  moderate  German 
Professors  was  Dieringer  of  Bonn,  who  had  been  pro 
posed  for  three  bishoprics,  including  the  Archiepiscopal 
See  of  Cologne.  True,  he  had  recently  somewhat  com 
promised  his  reputation  by  an  attack  on  the  Jesuit 
Kleutgen  ;  but  the  Nuncio  regarded  this  as  a  momentary 
aberration — the  general  opinion  being  that  at  fifty-six 
Dieringer  was  not  likely  to  belie  his  past.  To  mix 
him  with  theologians  in  the  Eternal  City  would  place 
him  more  completely  at  the  disposal  of  the  Roman 
cause.  Another  promising  person  was  the  historian 
Hefele.  True,  that  his  History  of  the  Councils  contained 
some  hazardous  remarks  ;  but  the  Nuncio  evidently  felt 
secure  of  him.  "  Now,"  adds  Meglia, "  it  is  very  noticeable 
that  no  member  of  the  German  party  of  savants  has 
been  invited  to  Rome,  and  the  result  is  that  they 
are  in  a  great  state  of  irritation.  It  would  be,  therefore, 
prudent  to  meet  this  by  a  careful  selection  from  the 
more  moderate  among  them."  As  a  result  of  this 
communication,  Pius  invited  Dieringer,  Hefele,  and 
others:  thus,  the  Augsburg  Gazette  observed,  correct 
ing  the  Italian  monotony  by  an  infusion  of  elements 
very  necessary  to  give  vitality.  So  Dollinger  was  left 
out.  But  he  was  by  no  means  unoccupied.  He  was 
engaged  in  writing  the  five  articles,  criticising  and 
condemning  the  Infallibility  doctrine  from  an  historical 
point  of  view,  which  appeared  anonymously  in  March 
1869  in  the  Augsburg  Gazette.  These  articles 
attracted  a  great  attention,  and  were  regarded  with 
profound  disgust  in  Rome.  In  three  months'  time 


IQ2        OPPOSITION   IN   GERMANY  [CHAP. 

appeared  the  volume  entitled  The  Pope  and  the  Council, 
by  Janus.  Janus,  as  the  preface  assured  the  reader, 
was  the  production  of  several  writers ;  but,  as  Friedrich x 
tells  us,  under  Bellinger's  control.  Janus  was  an  expan 
sion  of  the  five  articles  in  the  Augsburg  Gazette. 
The  purpose  of  Janus  was  to  demonstrate  that,  accord 
ing  to  ancient  Catholic  principles,  the  chief  exponent  of 
the  faith  in  Christendom  was  the  Collective  Episcopate  ; 
and  therefore  that  the  Council  stood  supreme  above 
the  Pope.  Leo  himself  acknowledged  that  his  treatise 
could  not  become  a  rule  of  faith  until  confirmed  by 
the  assent  of  the  Episcopate.  The  process  by  which 
these  principles  were  reversed  is  ascribed  partly  to 
the  ever-increasing  ascendancy  of  the  papal  power,  to 
which  in  the  long  development  of  centuries  many  things 
contributed.  The  historical  evolution  was  not  without 
protests  and  reactions,  but  forged  documents,  accepted 
by  uncritical  ages  as  correct,  misled  even  such  theo 
logians  as  St  Thomas. 

Various  influences  tended  to  advance  the  conception 
of  the  Pope's  Infallibility.  There  was  the  influence  of 
the  theologians  after  St  Thomas,  whose  great  authority 
seemed  sufficient,  but  whose  opinion  was  founded  on 
fictitious  documents.  There  was  the  influence  of 
the  Inquisition,  which,  wherever  it  was  dominant, 
rendered  instruction  in  the  ancient  conception  im 
possible.  There  was  the  influence  of  the  Index, 
which  meant  the  suppression  of  criticism  and  the 
conversion  of  historical  literature  into  partisan  pro 
ductions  for  the  maintenance  of  Ultramontane 
opinions.  The  publication  of  certain  books,  such 
as  the  Liber  Diurnus,  containing  historic  statements 
impossible  to  reconcile  with  Papal  Infallibility, 
was  prevented,  and  impressions  already  printed 

1  Friedrich,  Dollinger,  iii.  p.  485. 


xin.]  DOLLINGER  193 

were  destroyed,  confessedly  because  they  could  not 
be  utilised  in  the  controversial  interests  of  the  Italian 
theories.  Alterations  were  made  in  the  Breviary  in 
the  direction  of  Papal  Infallibility.  The  fact  that 
Pope  Honorius  had  been  condemned  as  a  heretic  by 
Councils  was  now  left  out.  But  more  than  many 
influences,  the  powerful  Order  of  the  Jesuits  contributed 
to  the  advancement  of  the  theory.  It  was  congenial 
to  their  whole  spirit.  Accustomed  to  the  principle  of 
blind  obedience ;  themselves  exhorted  and  in  turn 
exhorting  others  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  intellect ;  they 
identified  themselves  with  this  doctrine,  protected  it,  and 
promoted  it  with  tremendous  effect  Since  the  days 
of  Bellarmine,  their  theologian,  they  gave  it  the  benefit 
of  their  entire  concurrence. 

So  then,  according  to  Janus,  through  the  co-operation 
of  many  foreign  elements,  the  ancient  principle  is  found 
completely  reversed  ;  and  whereas  in  primitive  centuries 
the  Council,  the  Collective  Episcopate,  was  the  supreme 
exponent,  in  the  later  it  was  the  Pope.  This,  says 
Janus,  is  no  true  development.  It  is  rather  a  trans 
formation.  The  verdict  of  History  is  against  this 
doctrine  entirely. 

"  For  thirteen  centuries  an  incomprehensible  silence 
on  this  fundamental  article  reigned  throughout  the  whole 
Church  and  her  literature." 

"To  prove  the  dogma  of  Papal  Infallibility  from 
Church  History  nothing  less  is  required  than  a  complete 
falsification  of  it." 

The  advocates  of  Papal  Infallibility  could  not  avoid 
the  discussion  of  the  serious  problem  which  their  theory 
entailed,  namely,  under  what  conditions  is  the  Pope 
infallible  ?  They  found,  says  Janus,  on  closer  inspection, 
papal  decisions  which  contradicted  the  doctrines  either 

N 


194         OPPOSITION   IN   GERMANY          [CHAP. 

of  their  predecessors  or  of  the  Church.  Janus  gives 
numerous  instances.  It  became  necessary,  therefore, 
to  specify  some  distinctive  marks  by  which  the  product 
of  Infallibility  might  be  recognised.  Accordingly,  since 
the  sixteenth  century  there  grew  up  the  famous  view 
that  papal  judgments,  when  pronounced  ex  cathedra^ 
were  infallible.  The  remarks  of  Janus  on  this  point 
ought  to  be  given  as  far  as  may  be  in  the  writers'  words. 

The  writers  acknowledge  that  "  the  distinction 
between  a  judgment  pronounced  ex  cathedra  and  a 
merely  occasional  or  casual  utterance  is  a  perfectly 
reasonable  one,"  not  only  in  the  case  of  a  Pope,  but 
in  the  case  of  any  teacher.  Every  teacher  will  at 
times  speak  offhand,  and  at  times  speak  officially  and 
deliberately.  "  No  reasonable  man  will  pretend  that 
the  remarks  made  by  a  Pope  in  conversation  are  defini 
tions  of  faith."  But  beyond  this  the  distinction  has 
no  meaning.  Every  official  utterance  of  a  Pope  must 
be  an  ex  cathedra  utterance.  When  a  Pope  speaks 
publicly  on  a  point  of  doctrine,  he  has  spoken  ex 
cathedra ;  for  he  was  questioned  as  Pope,  and  has 
answered  as  Pope.  To  introduce  other  conditions,  such 
as  whether  he  is  addressing  an  individual,  or  a  local 
Communion,  or  the  entire  Church,  is  to  make  purely 
arbitrary  distinctions  which  are  really  prompted  by 
the  existence  of  certain  inconvenient  papal  decisions 
inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  his  Infallibility. 

This  question,  "Which  of  the  papal  decisions  are 
infallible  ?  "  is  indeed  momentous  to  the  Roman  church 
man.  The  authors  of  Janus  are  profoundly  disturbed, 
for  instance,  to  know  whether  the  doctrines  of  the 
Syllabus  produced  under  Pius  IX.  in  1864  are  or  are 
not  included  among  infallible  utterances. 

No  one  will  now  deny  that  it  was  an  act  of  discretion 
on  the  part  of  the  authors  of  this  book  to  produce  it 


xin.]  JANUS  195 

under  the  veil  of  anonymity.  They  would  allow  no 
opportunity,  so  the  readers  were  informed,  of  trans 
ferring  the  discussion  from  the  sphere  of  objective  and 
scientific  investigation  into  the  alien  region  of  personal 
invective. 

The  sensation  created  by  its  appearance  was  very 
great.  The  Dublin  Review}  among  other  expressions, 
declared  that  the  writers  of  Janus  had  excluded  all 
possibility  of  mistake  as  to  whether  they  were 
Catholics.  They  had  "  shown  that  they  are  just  as 
much  and  just  as  little  Catholics  as  are  Dean  Stanley 
and  Professor  Jowett."  "Janus  is  an  openly  anti- 
Catholic  writer."  The  Dublin  Review  laid  it  down 
that  "  the  Ultramontane  doctrine  exhibits  certainly 
most  singular  harmony  with  the  whole  past  course  of 
ecclesiastical  history";  but  it  manifested  considerable 
embarrassment  in  determining  what  papal  utterances 
there  were  which  were  really  issued  ex  cathedra. 
"  There  have  undoubtedly  been  very  many  ex  cathedra 
acts  not  formally  addressed  to  the  whole  Church," 
said  the  Dublin  Review^  but  omitted  to  add  by  what 
characteristics  infallible  utterances  might  be  known. 
Meanwhile  Janus  was  called  an  almost  incredible 
instance  of  controversial  effrontery. 

Dollinger's  Dublin  critic  affirmed  that — 

"  in  real  truth,  through  the  whole  post-Nicene  period, 
Pontifical  dogmatic  letters  issued  ex  cathedra  are  no 
less  undeniable  and  no  less  obtrusive  matters  of 
historical  fact  than  are  Ecumenical  Councils  them 
selves  ;  they  meet  the  student  at  every  page." 

The  Dublin  Review  forms  a  very  low  estimate  of 
the  intellectual  power  exhibited  in  Janus.  According 

1  Vol.  xiv.  N.s.  (1870),  p.  194. 


196  OPPOSITION    IN   GERMANY        [CHAP. 

to  that  authority,  it  was  "  very  difficult  to  suppose  that 
so  indubitably  and  extensively  learned  a  man  as  Dr 
Dollinger  can  be  mixed  up  with  so  poor  and  feeble  a 
production."  These  criticisms  were  followed  by  another 
article,  entitled  Janus  and  False  Brethren.  Here  the 
reviewer  fulminates  against  the  writers  of  Janus. 

"There  are  enemies  and  traitors  in  the  camp.  It  is 
not  from  Protestants  only,  but  from  men  kneeling  at 
the  same  altars  as  himself  that  the  Catholic  has  to 
dread  the  poisoning  of  his  faith." 

"In  number  indubitably  these  false  brethren  constitute 
no  more  than  a  small  and  insignificant  clique.  But  they 
are  energetic,  zealous,  and  restless ;  and  though  their 
intellectual  power  is  sometimes  absurdly  overrated, 
they  comprise  one  or  two  really  able  and  learned  men 
in  their  number." 

The  general  opinion  at  Rome  was  that  the  book  was 
certainly  composed  by  the  Munich  School,  and  the 
immense  historical  teaching  pointed  to  one  individual, 
known  for  his  life-long  familiarity  with  Papal  history.* 
Renewed  efforts  were  made  by  opponents  of  Infalli 
bility  to  induce  Dollinger  to  reside  during  the  Council  in 
Rome.  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg  did  all  that  lay  within 
his  power.  Strossmayer,  one  of  the  most  eloquent 
members  of  the  Council,  declared  that  Dollinger's 
presence  was  urgently  necessary.  Maret,  the  learned 
author  of  the  volumes  defending  a  modified  Gallican 
view,  entreated  Dollinger  to  overcome  his  reluctance 
and  render  this  service  to  the  Church.  "Although 
without  official  place,"  wrote  Maret,  "your  knowledge 
and  advice  would  greatly  influence  a  multitude  of  unen 
lightened  and  undecided  minds."  Bishop  Dupanloup 
thought  much  the  same. 

1  Friedrich,  iii.  p.  489. 


xiii.]  DOLLINGER  197 

Dollinger,  however,  thought  otherwise.  He  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  he  could  be  of  more  real  service 
to  the  cause  through  the  Press.1 

Bellinger's  massive  learning  and  extraordinary 
abilities  constituted  him  naturally  the  leader  in 
Germany  against  the  Ultramontane  proposals  ;  but  it 
must  never  be  forgotten  that  he  was  only  the  leader. 
Behind  him  was  a  vast  body  of  Bavarian  and  German 
approval.  Meetings  and  protests  and  petitions  against 
an  Infallibility  decree  sprang  up  all  over  Germany.2 
Munich,  Coblentz,  Berlin,  and  many  other  cities  pleaded 
vigorously  for  the  older  convictions.  A  very  serious 
anonymous  protest8  circulated  through  the  Bavarian 
Kingdom  in  May  1869.  It  solemnly  emphasised  the 
momentous  character  of  the  impending  conflict.  Two 
antagonistic  principles  were  engaged  in  final  strife  for 
supremacy :  on  the  one  hand,  Papal  absolutism  ;  on  the 
other,  the  genuine  Catholicism.  The  principles  of  the 
Syllabus  declared  that  the  Church  had  the  right  to 
resort  to  coercion,  and  possessed  direct  power  even  in 
temporal  affairs.  Liberty  of  conscience  and  liberty  of 
the  Press  were  denied  to  be  human  rights.  Were  these 
principles  to  be  erected  by  Papal  Infallibility  into 
dogmas  of  faith?  Was  Christendom  to  witness  the 
triumph  of  absolutism  and  a  new  Ultramontane 
confession  ? 

An  address  4  was  sent  by  the  Catholics  of  Coblentz  to 
the  Bishop  of  Treves,  dissociating  themselves  altogether 
from  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

"A  distinguished  religious  Order  is  concentrating  all 
its  forces  upon  this  project.  To  be  silent  would  imply 
approval.  As  Catholics,  they  feel  constrained  to  protest 

1  Friedrich,  iii.  p.  518.        2  Documents  in  Cecconi,  iii.  p.  312  ff. 
*  Ibid.  p.  315.  4  Ibid.  p.  326. 


igS          OPPOSITION   IN   GERMANY        [CHAP. 

to  their  Bishop  that  the  ideas  and  hopes  of  this  party, 
who  call  themselves  the  only  true  Catholics,  are  not  and 
never  can  be  theirs.  The  coming  Council  would  do 
the  Church  great  service  if  it  would  suppress  the  Index 
of  prohibited  books.  To  punish  the  errors  of  Catholic 
writers  by  placing  their  names  on  the  Index  is  neither 
worthy  of  the  spirit  nor  the  dignity  of  the  Church,  and 
is  hurtful  to  the  real  interests  of  the  advancement  of 
truth." 

This  address  from  the  Catholics  of  Coblentz  drew 
from  the  dying  Montalembert l  words  of  impassioned 
admiration.  All  his  old  eloquence  and  fire  for  a 
moment  re-appeared.  His  end,  he  said,  was  near.  He 
believed  himself  possessed  of  the  impartiality  which 
is  the  privilege  of  death.  His  body  is  already  a  ruin, 
but  his  spirit  lives  ;  and  he  turns  with  a  thrill  of  joy 
to  the  Catholics  of  Coblentz.  Their  protest  is  sound 
from  beginning  to  end.  He  could  willingly  endorse 
every  line  of  it.  His  only  sorrow  is  that  a  similar 
spirit  does  not  animate  the  French  ;  akin  to  that  which 
filled  them  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  Bavarian  Foreign  Minister,  Prince  Hohenlohe2 
issued  enquiries  to  the  Faculties  of  Theology  in  the 
Bavarian  Universities.  The  Professors  were  requested 
in  particular  to  explain  what  criteria  existed  for  the 
discernment  of  an  infallible  decree. 

The  Faculty  of  Wurtzburg  replied3  that,  so  far  as 
the  faithful  were  concerned,  it  did  not  much  matter 
whether  a  definition  of  faith  were  formulated  by  the 
Pope  after  consultation  with  the  Bishops  (as  in  1854) 
or  by  an  Assembly  of  Bishops  directed  by  him.  It 
is  all  the  same  to  the  individual  believer.  If  one 
has  to  recognise  a  human  authority  in  matters  of  faith, 

1  Documents  in  Cecconi,  iii.  p.  339.  2  Memoirs,  i.  p.  328. 

3  Cecconi,  iii.  p.  479. 


XIIL]        THE  MUNICH   THEOLOGIANS        199 

it  is  as  easy  to  yield  to  the  decision  of  one  as  to 
that  of  a  thousand.  Which  of  these  two  Christ  had 
ordained,  this  Faculty  did  not  discuss.  They  thought, 
however,  that  a  kind  of  Infallibility  existed  in  any 
court  of  final  appeal,  and  must  in  a  manner  be  pos 
sessed  by  the  Pope.  As  to  the  signs  whereby  an 
infallible  decree  might  be  distinguished  from  fallible 
utterances,  various  opinions  of  theologians  were  given. 
Some  maintained  that  deep  and  exhaustive  study  of 
Scripture  and  Tradition  was  an  essential  preliminary. 
No  decree  could  possess  Infallibility  unless  addressed 
to  the  entire  Church.  They  recognised  that  if  the 
coming  Council  were  to  define  Papal  Infallibility,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  make  certain  modifications  in 
the  Catechisms  of  the  Church ;  but  they  did  not 
consider  that  the  necessary  alterations  would  be  very 
profound. 

The  Munich  theologians  x  replied  in  a  very  different 
strain.  They  said  that  no  certain  criticism  was  uni 
versally  acknowledged  whereby  a  decree  which  was 
infallible  could  be  distinguished  from  those  which  were 
not.  Twenty  different  opinions  were  held  and  dis 
puted  about  it.  If  the  Council  at  Rome  undertakes 
a  definition  of  Papal  Infallibility,  it  had  better 
determine  also  the  nature  and  conditions  of  its  exercise. 
Otherwise  endless  disputes  and  similar  insecurity  will 
remain.  The  Bavarian  Catechisms  spoke  only  of  the 
Infallible  Authority  of  the  Church— that  is,  of  the  Pope, 
together  with  the  entire  Episcopate.  There  existed 
indeed  a  Jesuit  Catechism,  recently  introduced  into 
a  number  of  dioceses,  which  affirmed  that  the  authority 
of  the  Church  is  expressed  either  by  the  Pope  or  by 
a  Council  approved  by  him.  But  this  modification 
was  obviously  designed  to  transfer  the  privilege  of 
1  Cecconi,  iii.  p.  524. 


200          OPPOSITION    IN   GERMANY         [CHAP. 

Infallibility  entirely  and  exclusively  to  the  Pope. 
Manifestly  therefore  a  revolutionary  alteration  would 
have  to  be  made  in  the  diocesan  Catechisms  if  Papal 
Infallibility  were  decreed. 

That  a  doctrine  contrary  to  Papal  Infallibility  was 
being  taught  as  Catholic,  under  sanction  of  Episcopal 
Authority,  in  Germany  in  the  first  half  of  the  nine 
teenth  century  is  indisputable.  Liebermann's  theological 
writings  were  published  in  five  volumes  at  Mainz.  The 
third  edition  was  in  1831.  It  was  first  published  with 
the  imprimatur  of  the  Vicar-General  of  Mainz  in  1819. 

Liebermann  was  a  distinguished  personage  in  his 
day.  He  became  Superior  of  the  Seminary  at  Mainz 
and  Canon  of  the  Cathedral,  afterwards  Vicar-General 
of  Strasburg.  His  Institutions  Theologicce^  became 
the  standard  work  in  many  seminaries  in  France, 
Belgium,  Germany  and  America. 

Liebermann's  doctrine  is  : — 

"  It  is  certain  from  the  principles  of  the  Catholic 
Faith  that  the  supreme  Pontiff  has  the  chief  place 
in  determining  controversies  of  Faith  ;  and  that  his 
judgment,  if  the  consent  of  the  Church  be  added,  is 
irreformable.  But  whether  his  judgment  is  infallible 
before  the  Church's  consent  is  a  matter  open  to 
dispute  among  Catholics  without  detriment  to  their 
Catholicity."2 

To  this  proposition  Liebermann  adds  : — 

"  Although  there  are  many  saintly  and  learned  men 
among  Catholics,  who  in  their  regard  for  the  See  of 
Peter  have  taught  or  still  are  teaching  that  the  Roman 
Pontiff  when  he  speaks  ex  cathedra  cannot  err  ;  yet  there 
have  always  existed  very  many  other  theologians  who 
have  taught  the  opposite,  and  these  the  Church  none 
the  less  considers  to  be  pious  and  earnest  defenders 

1  Lichtenberger,  Encyclopedic  des  Sciences  Religreuses. 
3  Liebermann,  Institutioncs  Theologicce,  ii.  p.  540. 


XIIL]          LIEBERMANN— CHRISMANN         201 

of  the  Faith.  Therefore,  this  question  is  of  the  number 
of  those  which  may  be  disputed  without  detriment 
to  Catholicity." 

His  conclusion  is  that : — 

"accordingly  the  Infallibility  of  the  Roman  Pontiff 
cannot  be  urged  against  heretics,  nor  utilised  to 
establish  the  Catholic  Faith.  .  .  .l  Nor  can  it  be 
adduced,  even  by  those  who  are  fully  convinced  of 
its  truth,  as  a  test  principle.  For  nothing  can  be 
employed  as  a  basis  of  divine  Faith  which  is  not  in 
itself  indisputable.  Neither  can  that  be  made  the 
rule  of  faith  which  itself  forms  no  portion  of  the 
faith."2 

The  Catechism  of  the  Catholic  Religion  by  Krautheimer,3 
approved  by  the  Bishop  of  Mainz  in  1845,  contains  the 
following  question  and  answer : — 

"  Do  we  believe  that,  as  a  consequence  of  this  primacy, 
the  Pope  is  infallible  and  may  decide  as  Christ  Him 
self;  as  the  non-Catholics  allege? 

No.  The  Pope  possesses  in  controversies  of  faith 
only  a  judicial  decision  which  can  only  become  an 
article  of  faith  when  the  Church  gives  its  concurrence." 

This  and  similarly  worded  books  of  instruction  had 
been  recently  withdrawn  in  parts  of  Germany  through 
Ultramontane  influence,  and  replaced  by  a  Jesuit 
Catechism. 

Philip  Neri  Chrismann  was  a  Franciscan  monk,  and 
reader  in  Theology  and  Ecclesiastical  History.  His 
Rule  of  Catholic  Faith  was  republished  at  Wurzburg 
in  Bavaria,  with  the  permission  and  approval  of  his 
ecclesiastical  superiors  in  1854.  In  this  work  on 
Dogmatic  Theology  he  gives  an  exposition  of  the 
Infallibility  of  the  Church,  its  nature  and  restrictions, 

1  Page  542.  2  Page  543.  3  Page  87. 


202        OPPOSITION   IN   GERMANY  [CHAP. 

without  any  reference  to  the  Pope.  At  the  close  of 
the  volume  he  gives  a  list  of  Adiaphora,  or  things 
indifferent,  in  which  he  observes  that 

"although  the  greatest  reverence,  obedience  and  sub 
mission  be  due  to  the  Supreme  Pontiff  yet  he  is  not 
favoured  with  the  special  privilege  of  inerrancy  which 
was  given  by  Christ  our  Lord  only  to  the  Church."1 

Indeed,  the  majority  of  the  faithful,  and  above  all  the 
Bishops  and  clergy,  did  not  share  in  Germany  the  Ultra 
montane  views.2  The  theological  faculties  of  Tubingen 
and  Munich  were  firmly  attached  to  the  Episcopal  con 
ception,  and  thereby  equally  opposed  to  the  autocratic 
Roman  idea.  Hefele  at  Tubingen  had  pronounced,  as 
a  historian,  hardly  less  distinctly  than  Dollinger  at 
Munich. 

Before  obeying  the  summons  to  attend  the  Vatican 
Council,  an  Assembly  of  German  Bishops  was  held  at 
Fulda  (September  i869).3  Some  twenty  Bishops  were 
present.  There  was  Melchers,  Archbishop  of  Cologne, 
who  presided  ;  there  was  Bellinger's  Diocesan,  Scherr, 
Archbishop  of  Munich,  well  acquainted  with  the 
historian's  principles,  and  no  more  an  Ultramontane 
than  Dollinger  himself;  there  was  Ketteler,  Bishop  of 
Maintz,  in  whose  diocese  the  recognised  Catechism 
had  for  years  instructed  the  faithful  to  reject  Papal 
Infallibility,  and  who  became  one  of  the  most  persistent 
opponents  of  the  doctrine  to  the  very  last  in  Rome, 
and  in  the  Pope's  own  presence ;  there  was  Conrad 
Martin,  afterwards  an  Infallibilist,  but  at  present  known 
as  author  of  a  widely  disseminated  handbook  in  which 
the  doctrine  was  denied ;  and  there  was  Hefele,  Bishop 

1  Chrismann,  Rcgula  Fidei,  p.  319.  2  Ollivier,  i.  p.  424. 

3  Cecconi,  iv.  p.  155. 


3 

XIIL]  THE   FULDA   MEETING  203 

elect  of  Rottenburg,  whose  History  of  the  Councils  told 
heavily  against  the  Ultramontanes. 

The  German  Episcopate  was  under  no  illusions  as 
to  the  introduction  of  this  doctrine  into  the  coming 
deliberations  in  Rome.  Accordingly  they  set  other 
subjects  aside1  to  discuss  the  question.  It  was  declared 
that  a  question  so  momentous  required  the  production 
of  proofs  from  Tradition ;  proofs  of  such  a  kind  as 
to  satisfy  fully  the  demands  of  criticism,  while  leaving 
opponents  full  liberty  of  speech.  They  proceeded  to 
examine  the  opportuneness  of  any  definition.  On  the 
one  side  it  was  declared  that  Councils  hitherto  had 
only  passed  decisions  on  questions  of  urgent  necessity. 
Now  the  present  subject  presented  no  such  necessity. 
There  existed  no  danger,  either  to  the  purity  of  the  Faith, 
or  to  the  peace  of  the  Church.  Viewed  relatively  to 
the  Oriental  Churches,  a  definition  would  be  altogether 
inopportune.  Eastern  Christians  admit  a  primacy  of 
honour,  and  might  be  induced  to  admit  a  primacy  of 
jurisdiction.  But  they  hold  with  such  tenacity  to  the 
ancient  traditions  that  it  was  hopeless  to  imagine  they 
would  ever  assent  to  Papal  Infallibility.  The  same 
consideration  holds  with  reference  to  Protestants.  And 
also  for  the  Catholics  of  Germany  the  dogma  would  be 
dangerous. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  member  of  the  Assembly  urged 
that  by  many  people  the  dogma  was  desired ;  that  the 
opposition  must  not  be  exaggerated ;  that  the  number 
of  German  Catholics  was  relatively  few ;  that  the  pro 
mulgation  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  dogma  already 
involved  implicitly  that  of  Papal  Infallibility.2 

In  the  following  discussion  Bishop  Hefele  spoke  with 
strongest  emphasis.3  He  had  never  believed  in  Papal 

1  Cecconi,  ii.  p.  459. 
2  Ibid.  iv.  p.  1 60,  3  Friedrich,  ii.  p.  190. 


204         OPPOSITION    IN   GERMANY          [CHAP. 

Infallibility.  He  had  studied  the  history  of  the  Church 
for  thirty  years  ;  but  nothing  could  be  found  for  Papal 
Infallibility  in  the  ancient  Church.  It  could  not  be 
rightly  discussed  as  merely  inopportune,  for  it  simply 
was  not  true.  These  assertions  were  opposed.  Eventu 
ally  a  petition  was  sent  to  the  Pope,  declaring  the 
doctrine  inopportune  by  a  majority  of  fourteen  Bishops 
out  of  nineteen.1  Then,  as  a  curiously  incongruous 
sequel  to  their  own  grave  anxieties,  the  Bishops 
set  themselves  to  the  work  of  re  -  assuring  the  Ger 
man  Catholics  in  a  Pastoral  -  which  declared  that  an 
Ecumenical  Council  would  not  impose  a  new  dogma, 
a  dogma  not  contained  in  Scripture  and  Apostolic 
Tradition  ;  that  they  were  confident  that  no  obstacle 
would  be  placed  either  to  the  liberty  or  duration  of 
discussion  in  the  Council's  deliberations.  The  Pastoral, 
said  a  contemporary  writer3 — 

"contains  a  promise,  worded  with  all  the  distinctness 
that  could  be  desired,  that,  so  far  as  it  depends  on  the 
votes  of  the  German  Bishops,  the  yoke  of  the  new 
articles  of  faith  shall  not  be  laid  on  the  German 
nation." 

When  the  King  of  Bavaria  read  the  Pastoral,  he 
congratulated  the  Bishops  on  the  line  adopted,  and 
expressed  a  hope  that  a  similar  spirit  would  prevail 
in  the  approaching  deliberations  in  Rome.4 

On  the  other  hand,  a  distinguished  Prelate 5  compared 
the  opponents  of  Infallibility  to  the  possessed  at  Gadara  ; 
and  described  them  as  crying  piteously,  "  What  have  we 
to  do  with  thee,  Vicar  of  Christ?"  No  one,  he  said, 
would  be  deprived  of  freedom  of  thought  or  expression 

1  Cecconi,  ii.  p.  462.  -  Ibid.  iii.  p.  372. 

8  Quirinus,  Letters  from  Rome,  p.  36. 
4  Acta,  p.  1201.  *  Acta,  p.  1296  (November  1869). 


xni.]     DOLLINGER'S   CONSIDERATIONS    205 

in  the  coming  Council.  No  conflict  of  opinions  would 
be  there ;  nor  any  parties,  as  in  a  political  assembly. 

Dollinger,  as  Janus  shows,  was  the  victim  of  no 
illusions  as  to  the  main  purpose  to  which  the  Vatican 
Council  would  be  directed.  Whatever  impressions 
might  exist  in  France  or  elsewhere,  the  student  of 
History  did  not  misinterpret  the  steady  direction  of 
events,  the  persistent  intention  of  the  dominant 
influences  in  the  Church.  And,  although  permitted 
no  official  work  among  the  theologian  consultors  of 
the  Council,  he  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  Bishops 
the  conclusions  of  his  historical  learning,  in  his 
Considerations  respecting  the  question  of  Papal 
Infallibility.1 

Dollinger  insisted  that  the  principle  by  which  the 
Church  had  been  hitherto  controlled  in  matters  of 
faith  was  the  principle  of  immutability.  To  demon 
strate  that  a  doctrine  was  not  the  conviction  of  the 
entire  Church,  that  it  was  not  logically  included  as 
an  undeniable  sequence  in  the  original  Deposit  of 
Revealed  Truth,  was  hitherto  regarded  as  a  con 
clusive  demonstration  that  such  doctrine  could  never 
be  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  dogma  of  the  Church. 
Dollinger  contended  that  on  this  principle  the  case  for 
Papal  Infallibility  was  already  adversely  determined. 
In  the  Eastern  Church  no  voice  had  ever  been  heard 
to  ascribe  dogmatic  Infallibility  to  the  Pope.  The 
doctrine  did  not  arise  within  the  West  until  the 
thirteenth  century.  It  renders  the  history  of  Christen 
dom  for  the  first  thousand  years  an  incomprehensible 
enigma :  for  history  exhibits  Christendom  toiling  by 
painful,  circuitous  methods  to  secure  what,  if  the  Popes 
were  infallible,  might  have  been  gained  in  the  simplest 
way,  from  the  utterances  of  a  solitary  voice  in  Rome. 

1  See  Declarations  and  Letters  ^October  1869). 


206      OPPOSITION   IN    GERMANY      [CHAP.  xm. 

Nor  is  it  possible,  argued  Dollinger,  to  account  for 
the  transference  of  infallible  authority  from  the  Church 
to  the  Pope,  as  a  process  of  legitimate  development. 
The  new  theory  is  the  negation  of  the  old.  The  ancient 
doctrine  was  that  the  Divine  guidance  is  given  to  the 
Church  collectively.  It  is  the  Church,  as  a  whole, 
which  cannot  fall  away.  But  the  Ultramontane  theory 
reverses  this.  It  asserts  that  Divine  guidance  is  given 
not  to  the  Church  collectively,  but  to  one  individual 
person ;  that  Infallibility  is  his  alone — a  prerogative  in 
which  the  Collective  Episcopate  has  no  share  ;  that  from 
him  alone  the  Church  receives  light  and  truth.  This  is 
not  development.  It  is  negation.  Among  the  Scripture 
passages  to  which  Infallibilists  chiefly  appealed  was  the 
exhortation  to  strengthen  his  brethren.  But  this  is  an 
exhortation,  not  a  promise.  "  It  is  a  violent  perversion  to 
turn  an  admonition  to  duty  into  a  promise  of  the  invari 
able  fulfilment  of  that  duty."  Still  less  can  this  exhorta 
tion  be  transferred  as  a  promise  to  his  successors,  when 
it  was  only  a  personal  admonition.  It  was,  moreover,  an 
exhortation  which  Peter  himself  did  not  invariably  fulfil. 
Far  from  strengthening  the  Church  at  Antioch  in  the 
faith,  he  rather  perplexed  it  by  his  dissimulation. 

Dollinger  contended  that  the  historical  growth  of 
belief  in  the  theory  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  sufficiently 
instructive.  When  proposed  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  it 
was  withdrawn  by  the  legates  who  proposed  it ;  because 
they  recognised  that  a  number  of  the  Bishops  disapproved 
it.  Since  that  time  the  influence  of  the  Jesuits  and  the 
Inquisition  had  steadily  extended  the  theory,  for  they 
made  the  presentation  of  any  other  doctrine  in  books  or 
teaching  impossible  in  Italy,  Spain,  and  Portugal.  Every 
attempt  to  test  the  theory  by  historical  criticism  had 
been  put  upon  the  Index  and  suppressed,  with  the  solitary 
exception  of  Bossuet  and  Cardinal  de  la  Luzerne. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

HOHENLOHE  AND  FRIEDRICH 

IN  April  1869  Prince  Hohenlohe1  issued  a  circular, 
composed  chiefly  by  Dollinger,  to  the  Bavarian  Lega 
tions,  calling  their  attention  to  the  certainty  that 
Infallibility  would  be  discussed,  and  the  probability 
that  it  would  be  passed  at  the  approaching  Vatican 
Council ;  and  requesting  them  to  consult  the  various 
Governments  in  which  they  were  located  as  to  the 
advisability  of  some  concerted  action  on  the  part  of 
the  European  Powers.  This  step  was  taken  on  the 
ground  that  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  goes  far  beyond 
the  domain  of  purely  religious  questions,  and  has  a 
highly  political  character ;  inasmuch  as  the  power  of 
the  Papacy  over  all  princes'  and  people's  secular  affairs 
would  thereby  be  defined,  and  elevated  into  an  article 
of  faith. 

The  Austrian  Government  replied  to  the  circular 
that  it  would  be  inconsistent  for  nations  accepting  the 
principles  of  religious  liberty  to  offer  a  system  of  pre 
ventive  and  restrictive  measures  against  a  movement 
so  deeply  grounded  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church 
as  the  assembling  of  a  General  Council.  It  was  scarcely 
to  be  supposed  that  Bishops  of  the  Catholic  world  could 
fail  to  take  with  them  to  Rome  an  accurate  acquaint 
ance  with  the  practical  necessities  of  the  age.  Should 

1  Memoirs^  i.  p.  326. 
207 


208  HOHENLOHE  [CHAP. 

the  approaching  Council  invade  the  province  of  political 
affairs,  it  will  then  be  time  for  the  Governments  to  take 
such  measures  as  the  case  may  need.  This  chilling 
response  made  Prince  Hohenlohe  extremely  indignant. 
He  declared  that  he  had  never  proposed  preventive 
or  restrictive  measures,  but  asked  what  attitude  the 
Governments  proposed  to  adopt  toward  the  Council. 
To  delay  until  a  decree  was  passed  would  leave  the 
Government  no  power  except  to  protest. 

"  We  believe,"  he  wrote,1  "  that  we  are  not  mistaken 
when  we  maintain  that  not  one  of  the  Austrian  Bishops 
will  attempt  to  oppose  the  proclamation  of  the  dogma 
of  Infallibility.  In  this  dogma  lies  the  future  of 
Ultramontanism ;  in  it  lies  the  kernel  of  the  absolutist 
organisation  of  the  hierarchy.  It  is  the  crowning  of 
the  work  for  which  the  Ultramontane  party  has  been 
striving  for  years ;  and  no  Bishop  will  dare  to  move  a 
step  in  opposition  to  this  aim.  The  hierarchy  will 
come  out  of  the  Council  stronger  and  more  powerful, 
and  begin  the  battle  against  modern  civilization  with 
renewed  strength." 

Unsupported,  however,  by  the  Austrian  and  other 
Governments,  the  Bavarian  could,  of  course,  do  nothing. 

"  The  Bavarian  Government,"  wrote  Hohenlohe,2  "  has 
thereby,  indeed,  forfeited  the  sympathy  of  the  Society 
of  Jesus,  if  indeed  it  ever  had  it;  but  it  has  won  the 
approval  of  all  good  Catholics  who  are  not  under  the 
influence  of  that  Society." 

Bismarck  declared  that  the  movement  in  Bavaria  had 
resulted  in  increasing  caution  and  conciliatoriness  in 
Rome.  Prince  Hohenlohe  was  in  intimate  contact  with 
Rome  and  its  affairs  through  his  brother  the  Cardinal, 
who  fully  concurred  with  his  antipathy  to  things 

1  Memoirs,  p.  338.  2  Ibid.  p.  356. 


xiv.]  CORRESPONDENCE  209 

Ultramontane.  Most  instructive  are  the  confidential 
utterances  of  the  Cardinal  to  the  statesman,  lamenting 
the  dominant  influences  on  the  eve  of  the  Vatican 
Council. 

"  Perhaps  the  Holy  Father  is  still  deliberating,"  writes 
the  Cardinal  in  September  1869,  about  two  months 
before  the  Council  opened,  "  but  I  doubt  it.  With  all 
my  respect  for  the  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church,  my 
obedience  will  be  put  to  a  severe  test.  I  trust  that  God 
will  help  me.  I  often  ask  myself,  What  shall  I  do  in 
these  storms  ?  " 

He  feels  himself  isolated,  and  deliberately  ignored 
by  the  ruling  authorities.  He  writes  that  Dollinger 
could  come  to  live  with  him  in  Rome.  He  will  receive 
into  his  own  house  any  trustworthy  theologian  to 
assist  him  while  the  Council  proceeds.  The  Jesuits, 
he  says,  have  raised  the  question  of  Infallibility  as  a 
standard. 

"The  Pope  is  charmed  with  the  idea,  without  the 
least  notion  what  the  Jesuit  party  is  saying  and 
doing.  Touched  by  their  devotion,  he  in  his  blindness 
embraces  the  whole  Order  as  the  saviour  of  his  honour 
in  the  (quite  unnecessarily  raised)  question  of  his 
Infallibility.  .  .  .  The  Infallibility  question  has  thrown 
Pius  IX.  so  completely  into  the  arms  of  the  Jesuits,  that 
of  all  his  plans  and  ideas  against  them  not  a  trace 
remains.  The  good  fathers  know  that  they  can  keep 
a  firm  hold  on  Pius  IX.  only  if  he  is  driven  into  a 
corner  and  must  fly  to  them  for  help." 

It  was  arranged  that  Friedrich  should  go  to  Rome  as 
Cardinal  Hohenlohe's  theologian ;  but  that  he  was  to 
live  at  the  Cardinal's  was  to  be  kept  profoundly  secret. 
"He  should  give  some  other  reason,  such  as  that  he 
wants  to  see  Rome,  or  the  like.  You  will  understand 
that  better  than  I  can  tell  you,"  says  the  Cardinal  to 

O 


210  HOHENLOHE  [CHAP. 

his  statesman-brother.1  Meanwhile  Prince  Hohenlohe 
was  with  Dollinger  in  Munich.  He  was  there  when 
Dollinger  received  an  autograph  letter  from  the  King 
of  Bavaria,  praising  his  pamphlet  against  Infallibility. 
The  Cardinal  wrote  again  from  Rome2  to  say: — 

"  There  will  be  many  a  sharp  tussle,  and  I  fear  the 
Ultramontane  party  will  have  the  majority.  They  are 
impudent  and  reckless,  and  though  at  the  present 
moment  the  Pope  is  somewhat  out  of  humour,  owing 
to  various  manifestations,  such  as  Dupanloup,  etc.,  yet 
I  think  that  at  the  crucial  moment  the  impudent  party 
will  endeavour  to  outshout  all  the  others." 3 

But  the  helplessness  of  the  opposition  is  curiously 
illustrated  in  the  same  letter.  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg, 
a  strong  advocate  of  the  minority,  wanted  greatly  to 
get  Dollinger  to  Rome ;  yet  he  could  not  decide  to  send 
for  him  as  his  theologian.  Cardinal  Hohenlohe  wanted 
greatly  to  receive  the  German  Bishops  at  his  house 
every  week,  yet  he  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  do 
it.  He  is  afraid  the  Pope  would  forbid  them  to  assemble 
at  his  house.  By  February  1870  difficulties  increased 
vastly.  "  The  situation,"  wrote  Dollinger  to  Hohenlohe 
"  becomes  more  grave  and  threatening."  It  was  just 
announced  that  the  Archbishop  of  Munich  intended  to 
go  over  to  the  Infallibilists.  Friedrich  was  by  this  time 
lodged  with  Cardinal  Hohenlohe  in  Rome,  who  was 
"  managing  to  keep  him  in  spite  of  all  enemies." 4 
"  Stupidity  and  fanaticism,"  wrote  the  Cardinal, 
"  are  dancing  a  Tarantella  together,  accompanied  by 
such  discordant  music  that  one  can  hardly  see  or 
hear." 

Friedrich   is,   of  course,  a  violent   partisan,  and   no 

1  Memoir -s,  p.  369.  '2  November  1869. 

3  Ibid.  p.  375.  4  Ibid.  ii.  3. 


xiv.]  FRIEDRICH'S    DIARY  211 

more  capable  of  historical  impartiality  than  Veuillot  or 
Manning.  At  the  same  time  much  may  be  ascertained 
from  each.  Friedrich  kept  a  diary  through  the  critical 
months  of  the  sessions  in  Rome,  which  he  afterwards 
published.  He  had  access  to  numerous  distinguished 
personages.  He  exerted,  in  his  characteristically 
German  and  professorial  manner,  no  inconsiderable 
influence  on  the  theology  of  his  master.  He  met 
everybody  in  the  Cardinal's  rooms.  Accustomed  to 
the  freedom  of  a  German  University,  with  unlimited 
access  to  literature  of  every  kind,  Friedrich  finds  him 
self  in  a  city  under  mediaeval  restrictions.  Modern 
theology  of  an  anti-Infallibilist  type  could  scarcely  be 
obtained  at  all  in  Rome,  nor  could  it  be  smuggled 
into  the  city  through  the  post,  nor  printed  in  Rome, 
nor  could  it  be  found  in  the  libraries  to  which  Friedrich 
had  access.  Letters  were  opened  in  the  post,  or 
permanently  detained,  as  the  authorities  chose.  The 
police  were  ecclesiastical  officials  acting  in  the  interests 
of  the  Ultramontanes.  Dressel,  a  learned  German, 
editor  of  an  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  was 
visited  in  Rome  by  a  police  officer,  and  informed  that 
he  must  leave  the  city  for  having  written  letters  to 
the  Augsburg  Gazette,  in  collaboration  with  Professor 
Friedrich.  Dressel  protested  that  he  had  done  nothing 
of  the  kind.  The  only  answer  was  that  such  were  his 
orders  from  the  Vatican.  Dressel  appealed  to  Cardinal 
Hohenlohe ;  also,  and  more  effectively,  to  the  Prussian 
Ambassador,  who  made  such  emphatic  moves  that  the 
papal  police  did  not  venture  on  any  further  steps 
against  him. 

Veuillot,  who  was  then  in  Rome,  got  the  follow 
ing  criticisms  on  Cardinal  Hohenlohe  and  Professor 
Friedrich  published  in  his  journal,  L}  Univers,  which  he 
edited  in  France. 


212  HOHENLOHE  [CHAP. 

11  The  Governor  of  the  Eternal  City,  who  is  also  head 
of  the  police  has  at  length  discovered  the  source  of  the 
indiscretions, by  which  the  secrets  of  the  Council  have 
been  betrayed.  Suspicion  had  long  rested  on  Abb£ 
Friedrich,  whom  Cardinal  Ilohenlohe  brought  from 
Bavaria  as  his  theologian  dining  the  Council.  The 
Abbe,  in  spite  of  protection  from  the  Bavarian  Legation, 
has  been  compelled  to  leave  Rome,  Cardinal  Hohenlohe 
himself  being  anxious  to  dismiss  an  ecclesiastic  who  had 
betrayed  his  confidence.  It  was  reported  in  Rome  that 
the  instigator  of  these  deplorable  disloyalties  was  Prince 
Hohenlohe,  President  of  the  Bavarian  Government." 

Meanwhile  Friedrich,  neither  expelled  nor  dismissed, 
was  quietly  residing  in  Rome  and  copying  this  extract 
into  his  diary,  with  the  thoughtful  reflection :  "  I 
wonder  what  part  I  am  destined  to  play  in  an  Ultra 
montane  history  of  the  Vatican  Council."  Thus 
Friedrich  heard  and  saw  many  things.  He  heard 
Bishop  Hefele,  on  a  visit  to  Cardinal  Hohenlohe,  say 
that  for  thirty  years  he  had  sought  for  evidence  on 
Infallibility,  and  had  never  found  it.  To  the  same 
house  Hefele  returned  another  day  with  a  copy  of 
Jiis  pamphlet  against  Honorius.  The  chief  value  of 
the  work  to  Friedrich's  mind  consisted  in  the  fact  that, 
as  Bishop,  Hefele  did  not  repudiate  German  theology. 

Friedrich's  own  line  of  action  if  the  doctrine  became 
decreed  was  perfectly  clear.  He  had  no  intention  of 
bowing  before  the  storm,  or  of  yielding  an  external 
acquiescence  to  that  which  he  inwardly  discredited.  A 
criticism  which  appeared  in  the  Univers  indicated,  in 
the  plainest  terms,  the  future  alternatives  awaiting 
the  adherents  of  Janus,  and  indeed  the  opposition  in 
general. 

"  Are  they  decided,"  asked  Veuillot,  "  to  remain 
Catholics  after  the  Definition  ?  If  they  say  no,  their 


xiv.]  FRIEDRICH'S   DIARY  213 

Catholicity  is  already  condemned.  If  yes,  they  are  pre 
paring  for  themselves  an  act  of  faith  and  obedience 
scarcely  reasonable.  For  they  now  affirm  that  the 
doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  facts  of  history.  Will  they 
believe  that  black  is  white  because  the  Council  says  so, 
investing  it  with  a  power  to  convert  the  false  into  true  ?  " 

Friedrich  agreed  with  Veuillot  to  this  extent,  that 
history  cannot  be  reversed  by  a  conciliar  decision.  But 
Friedrich  did  not  attempt  to  conceal  his  conviction  that 
the  Vatican  Council  was  not  Ecumenical.  The  regula 
tions  imposed  upon  it,  from  without,  by  the  papal  power, 
infringed  its  freedom  of  action,  and  kept  it  at  the  mercy 
of  the  majority.  To  his  mind  there  was  little  interest 
or  importance  in  the  speeches  delivered  in  the  Council, 
since  the  initiative  and  the  moving  power  lay  elsewhere. 
He  wrote  dissertations,  for  the  Cardinal  Hohenlohe's 
instruction,  contrasting  the  principles  of  the  earlier 
Councils  with  the  modern  regulations.  He  affirmed  that, 
according  to  ancient  precedent,  the  right  of  introducing 
subjects  lay  with  the  Council  itself,  and  not  with  the 
Papal  See  ;  that  the  Council  and  not  the  Pope  possessed 
the  power  to  define.  But  he  saw  that  his  own  career 
as  Professor  of  Theology  was  at  an  end,  if  the  Ultra- 
montanes  should  succeed.  To  continue  in  his  former 
capacity  would  be  in  that  case  to  incur  the  reproach : 
"  You  are  a  cowardly  hypocrite,  a  liar ;  for  you  speak 
against  what  you  know  to  be  the  witness  of  scientific 
history." 

We  owe  to  Friedrich  the  following  letter,  in  which  an 
Oriental  Bishop  who  had  ventured  to  sign  a  protest  in 
Rome  against  the  -Infallibilist  theory,  makes  an  abject 
recantation  : — 

"  Most  Holy  Father,1  I  entreat  you  to  listen  with 
condescension  and  benevolence  to  the  humblest  of  your 

1  From  Friedrich's  Tagebuch. 


2i4  HOHENLOHE  [CHAP. 

beloved  sons  and  the  humblest  of  Bishops,  who  ventures, 
prostrate  before  your  feet,  to  address  a  few  words  to 
your  Holiness.  I  confess  that  I  signed  my  name  to  the 
Appeal  which  was  presented  to  you,  most  clement 
Father,  by  certain  Oriental  Bishops,  entreating  you  with 
all  humility  and  reverence  not  to  yield  to  a  request 
signed  by  the  majority  of  Bishops  that  the  Vatican 
Council  should  be  directed  to  define  the  Infallibility  of 
the  Roman  Pontiff.  I  signed  my  name  to  the  Appeal, 
chiefly  on  the  ground  of  the  difficulties  which  such  a 
decree  of  such  a  kind  might  create  among  schismatics 
if  misunderstood  and  misinterpreted ;  also  on  the 
ground  of  the  difficulty  in  reconciling  with  such  a 
definition  the  facts  about  Pope  Honorius.  But  I  had 
no  other  ground  of  objection  than  these.  I  was  not 
actuated  by  any  other  human  or  less  honourable  motive ; 
nor  by  party  spirit ;  nor,  as  certain  ill-disposed  persons 
have  maliciously  insinuated,  and  which  God  forbid,  by  any 
hostile  or  disrespectful  sentiment  either  toward  yourself, 
most  Holy  Father,  or  towards  the  Apostolic  Roman 
See,  which  is  the  fortress  of  truth  and  of  religion,  the 
immortal  centre  of  our  glory.  Nevertheless,  consider 
ing  that  certain  newspapers  have  most  unreasonably 
inferred  from  this  Appeal  that  the  Orientals  were  hostile 
towards  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  the  Holy  See ;  con 
sidering  also  that  other  newspapers  have  made  it  an 
opportunity  for  advancing  and  strengthening  the  so- 
called  Gallican  views,  identifying  us  with  them,  whereas 
we  have  never  really  had  anything  in  common  ;  whereas, 
both  as  teacher  in  theology  and  as  Bishop,  I  have 
always  held  and  taught  the  belief  that  the  judgment  of 
the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  speaking  ex  cathedra  as  universal 
doctor  by  the  institution  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  as  head  of 
the  Immaculate  Church,  must  be  actually  irreform- 
able ;  having  accordingly  studied  the  subject  more 
deeply  and  the  consequences  involved ;  having  also 
made  myself  familiar  with  the  replies  to  the  exaggerated 
and  blamable  tracts  of  the  priest  Gratry,  particularly 
the  excellent  and  solid  refutation  recently  composed 
by  Father  Ramiere  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  ;  finally  having 


xiv.]         FRIEDRICH    LEAVES    ROME          215 

had  the  good  fortune  to  meet  with  a  very  ancient 
manuscript  of  a  history  composed  by  a  Nestorian,  con 
taining  a  convincing  exculpation  of  Pope  Honorius  from 
all  error  in  faith :  for  these  reasons  and  for  other  con 
scientious  motives,  I  feel  myself  constrained  to  affirm, 
most  Holy  Father,  not  only  that  belief  in  the  inerrancy 
of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  when  deciding  ex  cathedra  in 
matters  of  faith  and  morals,  is  mine,  and  that  I  have 
always  held  it,  but  also  that  under  the  circumstances  it 
appears  to  me  reasonable,  by  no  means  dangerous — on 
the  contrary,  very  advisable — that  the  Universal  Council 
should  dogmatically  determine  that  the  Infallibility  or 
supreme  authority  exercised  by  the  Sovereign  Pontiff 
as  universal  doctor  of  the  Church  is  of  the  institution 
of  Christ,  is  founded  in  Holy  Scripture  and  in  Tradi 
tion,  consequently  that  it  is  of  faith.  I  declare  it 
in  the  simplicity  of  my  heart.  This  is  demanded  by 
truth  and  theological  thought.  This  is  demanded  by 
the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church.  This  by  great 
good  fortune  I  inbibed  in  my  youth  in  its  purest  source, 
the  Roman  College  of  the  Propaganda  itself.  This  I 
have  defended.  It  is  demanded  by  the  opposition  of 
men  of  malignant  intentions  against  the  Holy  See.  It 
is  demanded  by  the  intolerable  violence  of  the  enemies 
of  our  religion  and  of  the  Holy  Roman  See.  It  is 
demanded  by  our  love  and  our  reverence  for  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff  and  the  Holy  See.  It  is  demanded  by 
our  honour.  Finally  it  is  demanded  by  the  authority 
of  many  doctors,  and,  in  the  words  of  St  Augustine,  by 
the  entire  Catholic  Church." 

Signed  by  the  Chaldee  Archbishop         KHAYATH.1 
March  i. 

Friedrich  continued  to  reside  in  Rome  till  the  I3th  of 
May.  Some  time  before  this  he  felt  that  his  work  was 
done.  He  was  anxious  to  leave.  "  I  neither  will  nor 
can  be  any  longer,"  he  wrote,  "  a  witness  in  this  place 
to  the  oppression  of  the  Church." 

1  Friedrich,  Tagebuch>  p.  319, 


216  HOHENLOHE  [CHAP.  xiv. 

In  a  farewell  visit  to  the  Archbishop  of  Munich,  Scherr 
congratulated  Friedrich  on  his  ability  to  return  home, 
and  expressed  a  wish  that  he  could  do  the  same.  The 
Archbishop  took  the  opportunity  of  sending  a  message 
to  Dollinger,  advising  him  to  restrain  his  energies.  The 
Bishops  had  done  and  were  doing  their  duty.  Scherr 
strongly  impressed  upon  Friedrich  the  necessity  of 
making  his  influence  felt  with  Cardinal  Hohenlohe.  If 
only  a  Cardinal  resident  in  Rome  itself  had  but  the 
courage  to  utter  an  emphatic  non  placet  in  the  Council, 
the  Bishops  would  be  greatly  strengthened  to  follow  suit. 
Friedrich  disowned  the  possession  of  any  such  influence 
as  the  Archbishop  ascribed  to  him,  but  promised 
to  report  to  the  Cardinal  the  Archbishop's  desires. 
Friedrich  left  Rome  with  a  strong  foreboding  that 
personal  Infallibility  would  certainly  be  defined. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  IMMEDIATE   PREPARATIONS 

WHEN  Pius  IX.  had  finally  resolved  on  assembling  a 
Council  he  proceeded  without  delay  to  the  necessary 
preparations.  These  preparations  may  be  classified  as 
twofold :  those  within  the  Roman  Communion,  and 
those  relating  to  other  religious  bodies. 

I. /The  internal  preparations  were  largely  entrusted  to 
a  Commission  of  Cardinals,  selected  for  that  purpose. 
The  Cardinals  reported  to  the  Pope  upon  the  follow 
ing  points. 

First  came  the  important  problem,  to  determine  who 
were  qualified  for  membership  in  a  Council  of  the 
Church.  The  Episcopate,  of  course,  without  all  doubt. 
But  did  this  apply  only  to  Bishops  possessing  diocesan 
jurisdiction,  or  did  it  include  those  who  possessed  no 
definite  See?  It  was  urged  that  the  latter  were  just 
as  really  Bishops  as  the  former,  and  that  their  omission 
might  raise  disputes  on  the  Council's  validity.  It  was 
accordingly  decided  that,  with  the  Pope's  approval, 
titular  Bishops  as  well  as  diocesan  were  qualified  for 
seats  in  the  coming  Assembly. 

The  case  of  Abbots  and  generals  of  religious  Orders 
was  considered  next.  If  these  did  not  possess  episcopal 
authority,  they  possessed  at  least  a  real,  a  semi-episcopal 
jurisdiction  ;  being  themselves  superiors  over  a  consider 
able  multitude,  and  also  exempt  from  episcopal  control. 

217 


218       IMMEDIATE    PREPARATIONS        [CHAP. 

This  quasi-episcopal  position  was  considered  by  the 
Congregation  to  qualify  them  for  admission  to  the 
Vatican  Council.  These  decisions  were  of  great  signi 
ficance,  as  they  added,  it  is  said,  almost  two  hundred 
votes.1 

Secondly,  as  to  regulations  for  procedure,2  the 
Cardinals  asserted  that  the  Pope  alone  had  the  right 
to  introduce  matters  for  discussion.  Otherwise,  argued 
the  Cardinals,  the  Council  would  become  a  constitu 
tional  chamber.  But  a  Council  is  only  summoned  to 
discuss  what  the  Pope  desires  to  have  discussed  ;  not  to 
introduce  their  individual  conceptions  of  what  ought  to 
be  done.  If  any  reminiscences  of  the  principles  of 
Constance,  Pisa,  and  Basle  floated  before  the  Cardinals' 
memories ;  if  any  distant  echo  of  their  predecessors' 
intention  to  reform  the  Church  in  its  head  and  members 
haunted  them ;  it  was  instantly  condemned  by  the 
theory  now  introduced.  By  way  of  dispelling  the 
possible  objection  that  the  Pope  might  omit  important 
matters,  the  Cardinals  observed  that  it  is  an  unlikely 
thing,  that  it  must  be  left  to  Providence,  and  that  you 
cannot  expect  perfection  in  human  affairs.  Whatever, 
therefore,  the  Bishops  desire  to  introduce  for  conciliar 
discussion,  they  must  report  it,  not  to  the  Council,  but  to 
the  Pope  or  to  his  representative ;  and  the  Pope  will 
determine  whether  its  introduction  is  desirable  or  not. 
The  Cardinals  recommend  that  a  Commission  should 
be  created  for  this  purpose. 

In  the  third  place,  it  was  thought  desirable  that  four 
permanent  Commissions  should  be  formed :  one  on 
faith ;  one  on  discipline ;  one  on  religious  orders ; 
one  on  missions.  It  was  suggested  that  two  -  thirds 
of  the  members  should  be  chosen  by  the  Bishops 
and  one-third  by  the  Pope.  Pius,  however,  decided 

1  Friedrich,  Dollingcr,  iii.  p.  2o6ff.  a  Cecconi,  i.  p.  165. 


xv.]  PAPAL   LETTERS  219 

that  the  selection  should  be  entirely  left  to  the 
Bishops. 

Another  question  creating  no  inconsiderable  discus 
sion  was  whether  the  Bishops  should  be  required  to 
pronounce  a  profession  of  faith.  The  problem  was 
whether  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception 
should  be  included.  It  was  contained  in  no  existing 
formula  of  faith.  Some  were  adverse  to  its  introduction. 
Others  thought  it  impossible  for  the  Council  to  ignore 
the  existence  of  this  dogma.  Some  again  held  that 
since  the  dogma  had  already  been  declared  by  the 
Pope,  there  could  be  no  necessity  to  insert  it  in  a 
Council's  decree.  For  this  reason  it  ought  to  be 
recited  in  the  profession  of  faith.  Nevertheless  it  was 
held  wiser  not  to  introduce  it,  for  fear  of  producing 
upon  the  Bishops  a  bad  impression.  Accordingly  it 
was  decided  to  fall  back  on  the  Creed  of  the  Council 
of  Trent. 

In  the  Commission  a  discussion  was  also  held  on 
the  burning  question  of  pontifical  Infallibility.  Two 
questions  were  raised :  Was  it  definable  ?  was  it 
opportune  ?  The  former  was  answered  in  the  affirma 
tive.  So  was  the  latter,  but  with  the  proviso  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  proposed  by  the  Holy  See,  except  at 
the  request  of  the  Bishops.  Accordingly  no  further 
mention  was  made  of  the  subject  in  the  Cardinal's 
report.  Nevertheless  they  did  not  cease  to  study  it. 

2.  The  external  preparation  for  the  Council,  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  Roman  body,  consisted  in  a  series  of 
letters  and  announcements  to  the  other  Churches  of 
Christendom. 

Three  Papal  letters  were  issued  in  reference  to  the 
Council's  actual  assembling.1 

1  Cecconi,  i.  p.  379. 


220         IMMEDIATE   PREPARATIONS      [CHAP. 

First  the  Bull  summoning  the  Bishops  of  the  Roman 
Communion  [29th  June  1869],  together  with  the  Abbots, 
and  all  persons  qualified  either  by  right  or  privilege  ; 
requiring  them,  and  exhorting  them  by  their  fidelity 
to  the  Roman  See,  and  under  the  penalties  appointed 
for  disobedience,  to  attend  at  the  Vatican  on  8th 
December. 

Was  it  accident  or  design  which  twice  over  introduced 
into  this  letter  the  famous  phrase  majorem  Dei  gloriam  ? 
Certainly  it  was  not  accident  which  omitted  from  the 
enumeration  of  the  Council's  uses  and  purposes  all 
reference  to  the  problem  of  pontifical  Infallibility,  and 
rested  content  with  a  general  allusion  to  the  wise 
ordering  of  those  things  which  pertain  to  defining 
dogmas  of  faith. 

A  second  letter x  was  directed  to  the  Bishops  of  the 
Oriental  rite  not  in  communion  with  the  Apostolic  See. 
In  this  letter  a  solicitude  is  expressed  for  all  Christians 
everywhere ;  more  especially  for  those  Churches  which 
were  formerly  united  with  the  Apostolic  See,  but  now 
by  the  machinations  of  the  Author  of  all  schisms  are 
unhappily  parted.  The  Oriental  Bishops  are  entreated 
to  come  to  this  General  Synod,  as  their  fathers  came 
to  that  of  Florence — in  order  to  be  reunited  to  the 
Apostolic  See,  which  is  the  centre  of  Catholic  truth 
and  unity. 

Another  letter 2  was  directed  to  all  Protestants  and 
other  non-Catholics.  They  are  aware  that  Pius  has 
thought  it  desirable  to  summon  all  Catholic  Bishops 
to  a  Council  at  Rome.  He  is  confident  that  this  will 
issue  to  the  greater  glory  of  God.  He  calls  upon  them 
to  reconsider  whether  they  are  following  the  way  pre 
sented  by  Christ.  No  community  can  form  a  part 

1  Cecconi,  i.  p.  387  (8th  September  1868). 

2  Ibid.  p.  390  (i3th  September  1868). 


xv.]        REPLIES  TO   PAPAL   LETTERS       221 

of  the  Catholic  Church  if  visibly  severed  from  Catholic 
unity.  Such  communities  are  destitute  of  that  Divinely 
constituted  authority  which  insures  against  variation 
and  instability.  Accordingly  he  exhorts  and  beseeches 
them  to  return  to  the  one  fold  of  Christ. 

The  replies  of  the  Oriental  Churches  claim  inde 
pendence  and  equality.  The  Greek  Patriarch  at 
Constantinople  declared  that  the  Oriental  Church 
would  never  consent  to  abandon  the  doctrine  which 
it  held  from  the  Apostles,  transmitted  by  the  Holy 
Fathers,  and  the  eight  Ecumenical  Councils.  The 
Ecumenical  Council  is  the  supreme  tribunal  to  which 
all  Bishops,  Patriarchs,  and  Popes  are  subjected. 

The  Armenian  Patriarch  criticised  the  Pope's  action 
with  severity  ;  asserted  that  the  principles  of  equality 
and  apostolic  brotherhood  had  not  been  observed  by 
the  Pope.  The  rank  which  the  Canons  ascribe  to  the 
Papal  See  only  give  him  the  right  to  address  personal 
letters  to  the  Bishops  and  Synods  of  the  East,  but 
not  to  impose  upon  them  his  will  by  encyclicals  in 
the  tone  of  a  master.  The  Armenian  Patriarch  wrote 
to  the  Catholicos  of  Ecmiazin  to  say  that  "the 
Patriarch  of  the  Roman  Church — Pius  IX."  had  sent 
a  letter,  announcing  a  Council.  The  Catholicos  replied 
that  the  tone  of  the  Pope's  letter  gave  no  hope  that 
union  would  be  realised :  for  it  did  not  acknowledge 
the  chief  Pastors  of  the  Eastern  Church  as  equals  in 
honour  and  dignity.  And  yet  they  are  successors  of 
the  Apostles.  They  have  received  the  same  authority 
from  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  Roman  Patriarch. 

The  attitude  of  the  German  Protestants  was  un 
compromising.  The  Nuncio  in  Bavaria  wrote  to 
Antonelli  that  the  Germans  regarded  the  invitation  as 
an  insult.  There  might  be  individual  conversions,  but 
certainly  not  a  general  return.  The  common  opinion  was  : 


222       IMMEDIATE   PREPARATIONS        [CHAP. 

the  Pope  invites  us  graciously  to  put  ourselves  at  the 
mercy  of  the  Council ;  but  the  bird  which  has  escaped 
rejoices  in  its  liberty.  There  existed  a  vague,  indeter 
minate  desire  for  unity,  but  entire  diversity  as  to  the 
basis  for  its  realisation ;  and  the  personal  interest  of 
the  Pastors  was  against  unity. 

From  Berlin  came  this  criticism  on  the  Pope's  letter : 
"  We  hold  it  impossible  to  find  in  this  letter  the  least 
indication  of  really  conciliatory  spirit  on  the  basis  of 
evangelical  truth."  The  Protestants  assembled  at  Worms 
declared  that  the  principal  cause  of  the  divisions  which 
they  deplored  was  the  spirit  and  action  of  the  Jesuit 
Society.  This  Society  which,  according  to  their  view, 
was  the  deadly  foe  of  Protestantism,  stifled  all  freedom 
of  thought,  and  dominated  the  entire  existing  Roman 
Church.  If  the  permanent  union  and  well-being  of 
Christendom  was  to  be  secured,  hierarchical  pretensions 
must  be  laid  aside.  Elsewhere  the  resolution  was  passed 
to  ignore  the  Pope's  invitation,  as  being  merely  a  matter 
of  form. 

An  American  Presbyterian  reply  to  the  Pope's 
letter  said,  that  while  firmly  convinced  that  the  unity 
of  the  Church  is  the  will  of  Christ,  they  felt  it  a  duty 
to  state  the  reasons  why  they  cannot  unite  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  coming  Council.  It  is  not  that 
they  reject  a  single  article  of  the  Catholic  Religion. 
They  are  no  heretics.  They  accept  the  Apostles'  Creed 
and  the  doctrinal  decisions  of  the  first  six  General 
Councils.  But  they  cannot  assent  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Council  of  Trent.  The  barrier  which  this  Council 
has  erected  between  them  and  Rome  is  insurmountable. 

Certainly  nothing  was  further  from  the  Pope's  inten 
tions  than  to  invite  members  or  representatives  of  any 
other  Communion  to  discussion.  All  he  intended  was 
to  advise  them  to  profit  by  this  occasion,  to  submit 


xv.]  OPINION  IN  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  223 

and  secure  their  eternal  salvation.  If,  said  Pius,  they 
would  only  seek  with  all  their  hearts,  they  would 
easily  lay  aside  their  preconceived  opinions,  and  return 
to  their  Father  from  whom  they  have  so  unhappily 
departed.  He  would  receive  them  with  paternal 
benevolence.  And  then,  with  a  scarcely  diplomatic 
allusion  to  the  prodigal  who  had  wasted  his  substance 
in  riotous  living,  Pius  declared  he  would  rejoice  to  say, 
"  These  my  sons  were  dead  and  are  alive  again  ;  they 
were  lost,  and  are  found."1 

In  the  English  Church  opinion  was  divided  as  to  the 
manner  and  spirit  in  which  the  Pope's  letter  should  be 
met.  Bishop  Wordsworth  of  Lincoln2  replied  in  a 
Latin  letter.  He  assumed  that  the  English  Church  was 
included  in  the  letter  addressed  to  all  Protestants ; 
and  accepted  the  title  in  the  sense  of  protesting 
against  errors  contrary  to  the  Catholic  Faith.  He 
resented  the  tone  and  temper  of  the  Pope's  appeal ; 
the  judgment  implied  on  the  validity  of  the  English 
Episcopate ;  protested  that  we  have  never  seceded 
from  the  Catholic  Church,  nor  separated  willingly  even 
from  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  criticised  in  particular  the 
doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  as  an  instance 
of  indisputable  variation  ;  and  added  certain  unhappy 
exegetical  remarks  of  an  apocalyptic  character  on  the 
relation  between  Rome  and  Babylon.  This  line  of 
response  probably  represented  no  inconsiderable  element 
at  the  period  at  which  it  was  written. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  section  existed  in  the  English 
Church,  keenly  alive  to  its  local  deficiencies,  and 
possessed  with  strong  and  enthusiastic  aspirations  for 
corporate  reunion.  In  their  opinion,  faults  of  taste 
and  assumptions  due  to  Italian  ignorance  or  other 

1  Cecconi,  ii.  p.  304. 

2  Miscellanies  Lit.  and  Religious,  i.  p.  330,  in  Latin  ;  transl.  p.  344. 


224        IMMEDIATE    PREPARATIONS       [CHAP. 

points  of  view,  might  well  be  overlooked,  if  not  con 
doned,  in  the  interests  of  what  appeared  to  be  a 
genuine  desire  for  unity.  A  resentful  and  criticising 
spirit  seemed  only  calculated  to  frustrate  all  hope  of 
better  things.  The  magnificence  of  the  coming 
Assembly,  the  grandeur  of  its  scale,  the  regions  it 
involved,  the  Churches  it  included,  captivated  their 
imaginations.  Whatever  might  be  the  individual  view 
of  the  relative  position  of  the  separated  portions  of  the 
great  Christian  family,  such  a  gathering  as  this  must 
enlist  their  respect,  their  sympathy,  and  their  prayers. 
They  pleaded  earnestly  for  corporate  reunion.  As  the 
separation  was  corporate,  so  must  the  reconciliation  be. 
They  insisted  as  strenuously  as  any  other  members  of 
the  Anglican  Communion  on  the  impossibility  under 
present  circumstances  of  doing  anything  else  than 
remain  where  they  are.1 

"You  require  us,  for  instance,  to  say — not  formally 
indeed,  but  in  effect — that  we  have  no  priest  and  no 
sacraments  ;  whilst  it  is  quite  plain  to  us  that  our  present 
Episcopate  is  in  all  respects  the  true  and  lineal 
descendant  of  the  Apostolic  Mission  in  this  land. 
You  require  us  to  renounce  communion  with  the 
Church  of  England  on  the  ground  that  she  is  heretical ; 
we,  on  the  other  hand,  are  convinced  that  there  is 
nothing  in  her  authorised  teaching  which  you  do  not 
yourselves  teach  in  your  own  pulpits  and  Catechisms. 
That  she  is  actually  separated  from  the  centre  of 
visible  Catholic  unity  is  a  fact  deplorable  indeed,  but 
too  patent  to  be  questioned ;  that  she  is  wilfully, 
avowedly,  and  therefore  guiltily  schismatical  we  utterly 
deny ;  to  say  that  we  ourselves  are  schismatics  is 
simply  to  give  the  lie  to  the  most  cherished  longing 
of  our  hearts.  No  !  we  must  remain  where  God  has 
placed  us,  loyal  to  our  own  Communion  and  to  our 

1  G.  F.  Cobb,  Few  Words  on  Reunion  (1869),  p.  6. 


xv.]  OPINION  IN  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  225 

own  Episcopate,  loyal  at  the  same  time  (in  spirit)  to 
yours :  if  we  are  not  of  the  body  of  your  Church,  we 
belong  at  any  rate  to  its  sou/" 

After  this  vigorous  declaration  of  principles  and 
loyalty  the  reunionist  felt  justified  in  confessing  the 
defects  within  the  Anglican  Communion  of  which  he 
was  painfully  conscious. 

"  Need  we,  after  all,  be  so  very  angry  at  being  classed 
with  Protestants — if  it  be  true  that  we  have  been  so — 
when  at  least  half  our  brother  Churchmen  rejoice  at  it, 
and  are  never  tired  of  proclaiming  to  the  world  that  we 
are  a  Protestant  Church,  a  creation  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  specially  commissioned  to  wage  war  with  the 
Papal  anti-Christ  to  the  end  of  time  ?  Even  regarding 
our  Communion  from  the  most  favourable  point  of  view, 
can  we  say  that  she  has  done  very  much  during  the 
centuries  of  her  separation  from  the  Holy  See  towards 
vindicating  her  Catholicity  even  in  the  Anglican  sense 
of  the  word  ?  Does  she  present  herself  to  her  Catholic 
brethren  on  the  Continent  in  any  very  marked  contrast 
to  the  Protestant  sects  ?  " 

Thus  there  was  at  least  in  certain  directions  within  the 
Anglican  Communion  a  distinct  readiness  to  respond 
to  any  overtures  for  unity.  There  was  in  addition  a 
very  wide-spread  interest  in  the  coming  Council,  not 
unmixed  with  curiosity  and  anxiety  as  to  the  steps 
which  might  be  taken  to  bring  the  severed  sections  of 
Christendom  nearer  together. 

By  far  the  most  penetrating  and  profound  on  the 
Anglican  side  was  Dr  Pusey.  Perfectly  clear  and 
sure  of  his  position,  whole-hearted  in  his  devotion  to 
his  own  Communion,  he  insisted  that  the  English 
Church  must  be  treated  collectively:  as  a  portion  of 
the  Church  Catholic,  to  be  reunited ;  not  as  individuals, 

p 


226          IMMEDIATE   PREPARATIONS     [CHAP. 

to  be  absorbed.  He  was  in  correspondence  with  the 
Bishop  of  Orleans  and  the  Archbishop  of  Paris.  With 
this  aim  he  wrote  his  Eirenicon,  Is  Healthful  Reunion 
Impossible?  The  Belgian  Jesuit  De  Buck  corresponded 
with  Bishop  Forbes  of  Brechin.  The  Jesuit  Father 

"  was  certain  that  at  Rome  there  was  no  wish  for 
Infallibility."  He  "  maintained  that  every  one  at  Rome 
was  astonished  to  hear  that  the  Anglican  Bishops  did 
not  consider  the  command  to  attend  the  Council  as 
addressed  to  them."1 

Attempts  were  made  by  Newman  to  induce  Pusey 
to  visit  Rome ;  or  at  least  to  get  up  a  big  petition 
and  present  it  to  the  Holy  See ; 2  quietly  observing  at 
the  same  time  that  the  sort  of  petition  which  he  had 
in  view  "  cuts  off  the  subscribers  to  it  from  the  exist 
ing  Establishment;"3  Newman  also  suggested  that 
no  Anglican  Bishops  should  go.  Pusey  replied  by 
enquiring  why  should  not  Newman  himself  go  to 
Rome  for  the  Council.  Dupanloup  invited  him  as 
his  theologian.  But  Newman  declined,  on  the  pretext 
that  he  was  not  a  theologian,  and  would  only  be 
wasting  his  time  in  matters  which  he  did  not  under 
stand.4 

Not  unnaturally,  Pusey's  penetrating  criticism  was  : — 

"If  they  invited  any,  it  should  be  Bishops.  Theo 
logians  go  to  accompany  their  Bishops.  They  have 
ignored  our  Bishops,  and  ask  any  of  us  whom  they 
may  ask  informally,  because  they  will  deliberately 
withhold  all  acknowledgement  of  the  slightest  basis 
upon  which  we  can  treat  as  a  Church."6 

"  I  have  no  doubt,"  Pusey  added,  "  that  the  invitation 
to  Rome  is  given  in  the  hope  that  the  imposing  spectacle 
presented  by  the  Council  may  bring  about  individual 

1  Liddon's  Life  of  Pusey,  iv.  p.  186. 
2  Page  155.        3  Page  182.        4  Page  161.        5  Page  180. 


xv.]  OPINION  IN  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  227 

conversions  of  English  Churchmen  more  or  less  learned 
or  well  known.  But  what  can  we  expect  when  they 
invited  the  great  Greek  Church  simply  to  submit? 
I  expect  nothing  under  the  present  Pope."1 

"The  difficulty  of  treating  is  this,  that  we  have  two 
entirely  distinct  objects:  we,  corporate  reunion  upon 
explanation  of  certain  points  where  they  have  laid 
down  a  minimum  and  upon  a  large  range  beyond 
it ;  they,  individual  conversions  or  the  absorption 
of  us." 

Meanwhile,  Pusey  prepared  an  edition  of  Cardinal 
Torquemada's  great  work,  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Immaculate  Conception,  originally  composed  for  use 
at  the  Council  of  Basle  at  the  instigation  of  Pope 
Paul  III.  This  edition  Pusey  dedicated  to  the  Council 
about  to  be  held  in  Rome.  He  sent  copies  to  Rome 
for  the  Bishop  of  Orleans,  and  other  members  of  the 
Council.  These  were  returned  from  Rome  with  refuse 
written  upon  them.2  Pusey  wrote  to  Newman  to 
enquire  what  this  meant.  Newman  answered  that  he 
was  certain  that  the  Bishop  to  whom  the  books  were  sent 
would  not  be  guilty  of  such  incivility ;  and  suggested 
a  suspicion  that  the  Roman  police  would  not  pass  a 
book  with  Pusey's  name.  This  suspicion  proved  correct. 
Newman  wrote  again  :  "  I  had  a  very  kind  letter  from 
Bishop  Clifford,  telling  me  that  neither  he  nor  the  Bishop 
of  Orleans  had  refused  my  book,  and  asking  me  to  send 
it  to  him  at  Clifton."3  But  these  despotic  methods  of 
government  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  were 
hardly  conducive  to  the  advancement  of  mutual  under 
standing,  or  indeed  to  the  interests  of  truth.  The 
movements  at  Rome  were  watched  by  Pusey  with 
ever-deepening  sorrow : — 

"  Manning's    is    a    strange    lot,"    he    wrote    "  with, 

1  Liddon's  Life  of  Pusey,  iv.  p.  181.          *  Page  190.         *  Page  192, 


228      IMMEDIATE  PREPARATIONS    [CHAP.  xv. 

I  should  have  thought,  but  a  very  moderate  share 
of  learning,  by  throwing  himself  into  the  tide,  to 
seem  to  be  at  the  head  of  a  movement  which  should 
revolutionise  the  Church.  It  is  a  mysterious  lot,  one 
which  one  would  not  like  for  oneself.  The  composition 
of  the  Congregation  on  Dogma  has  discouraged  us. 
Those  whom  we  should  have  had  most  confidence  in, 
Mgrs.  Dupanloup  and  Darboy,  omitted,  and  Manning 
in  it.  It  is  utterly  hopeless  to  send  any  propositions 
to  a  Congregation  in  which  Manning  should  be  a 
leading  member.  I  am  told  that  he  has  been  impress 
ing  the  Council,  or  at  least  important  Bishops,  with 
the  idea  that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  the  English 
would  join  the  Roman  Communion  if  the  Infallibility 
were  declared."1 

Pusey's  biographers  say  that 

"as  the  meetings  of  the  Council  went  on,  Pusey  had 
really  very  little  hope  of  any  wise  result."2 

"  In  all  later  issues  of  his  third  Eirenicon,  Pusey 
altered  the  title  from  '  Is  Healthful  Reunion  Possible  ? ' 
to  a  form  which  embodied  his  future  attitude  towards 
the  Roman  question — '  Healthful  Reunion,  as  conceived 
possible  before  the  Vatican  Council.' " 3 

1  Liddon's  Life  of  Pusey,  iv.  p.  189.          2  Page  190.          3  Page  193. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  OPENING  OF  THE  VATICAN   COUNCIL 

THE  Council  of  the  Vatican  was  opened  on  the  Feast 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception  (8th  December  I869).1 
There  was  significance  in  the  selection  of  the  day. 
That  very  day,  fifteen  years  before,  Pius  IX.  had 
proclaimed  a  new  dogma  on  the  Virgin ;  and,  as  a 
fervid  prelate  assured  him,  he  who  had  declared  the 
Virgin  immaculate  was  now  to  be  proclaimed  by  her 
infallible.  The  Council  was  held  in  the  South  Transept 
of  St  Peter's,  and  at  the  opening  service  seven  hundred 
and  two  members  were  present.2  So  large  an  Assembly 
had  never  been  held  before.  The  proportions  of  the 
two  opinions  were  roughly  between  four  and  five 
hundred  Infallibilists  and  between  one  and  two  hundred 
opponents  of  the  doctrine. 

Meetings  of  the  Council  were  of  two  kinds :  the 
ordinary  Congregations,  at  which  none  but  members 
and  officials  were  permitted  to  be  present,  while  the 
proceedings  were  secret ;  the  Public  Sessions,  at  which 
the  public  were  admitted,  and  the  Decrees  proclaimed. 
Of  the  former  kind  there  were  in  all  eighty  -  nine, 
of  the  latter  four.  Only  two,  however,  of  the  Public 
Sessions  declared  matters  decreed :  for  the  first  was 
entirely  occupied  with  ceremonial,  and  at  the  second 

1  Ada.  3  Ibid. 

229 


. 


230     OPENING  OF  VATICAN  COUNCIL    [CHAP. 

(6th  January)  no  Decrees  were  ready;  it  was  accord 
ingly  devoted  to  recitals  of  the  Creed  of  the  Council  of 
Trent.  The  Pope  was  never  present  except  at  the  four 
Public  Sessions.  He  exerted  his  influence  without  com 
promising  his  dignity. 

The  secrecy  of  the  proceedings  was  thoroughly  in 
accordance  with  the  Italian  disposition.  Every  official 
and  member  of  the  Council  was  sworn  to  observe  it. 
But  the  regulation  proved  ineffective,  partly  because 
the  Pope  himself  released  certain  members  of  the 
majority  from  the  necessity  of  its  observance,  and 
partly  because  the  incessant  discussions  in  unofficial 
assemblies  of  the  Bishops  could  not  easily  escape 
publicity.  Much  information  leaked  out  in  various 
directions  and  appeared  in  print. 

The  influence  of  Pius  IX.  upon  the  Council  was 
exercised  partly  through  official  documents.  Three 
important  papers1  were  issued  by  him  to  the  Council 
during  its  early  period :  The  Constitution  on  Procedure 
(i8th  December  1869);  on  Election  to  the  Papacy  in 
case  of  a  Vacancy  (ist  January  1870)  ;  on  Absolving 
from  Ecclesiastical  Censures  (i5th  January  1870).  The 
significance  of  the  last  may  be  measured  by  the  follow 
ing  description.  Its  effect  was  "to  cancel  episcopal 
encroachments  on  the  Papal  authority."2  The  second 
was  intended  to  prevent  any  assertion  of  power  by 
the  Council  in  case  the  Pope  might  die. 

But  far  the  most  important  of  these  three  Constitu 
tions  was  that  which  regulated  the  Council's  procedure 
(multiplices  inter).  This  remarkable  document  asserted 
that  the  right  of  proposing  subjects  for  discussion 
belonged  to  the  Papal  See,  but  that  the  Pope  never 
theless  desired  and  exhorted  the  Bishops  to  give  in 
their  proposals  to  a  Congregation  appointed  for  that 

1  Acta.  3  Ollivier,  i,  p.  460. 


xvi.]       REGULATIONS   BY   THE   POPE       231 

purpose,  The  value  of  the  concession  was  qualified 
by  the  fact  that  the  Congregation  in  question  was 
selected  entirely  by  the  Pope,  and  was  composed  of 
Ul  tramontanes. 

All  the  officers  of  the  Council,  including  the  five 
Presidents,  were  appointed  by  the  Pope  on  his  own 
authority ;  and  their  names  were  given  in  this  Decree. 
The  details  of  procedure  were  also  therein  defined.  No 
Bishop  was  to  leave  without  the  Pope's  permission. 

This  certainly  was  a  striking  document.  The  French 
statesman,  Ollivier,  says  that  "  its  novelty,  its  boldness, 
its  audacity  is  only  realised  when  compared  with  the 
proceedings  at  Trent." l  At  Trent  the  Regulations  were 
determined  by  the  Bishops  themselves. 

When  the  Vatican  Council  began  its  work,  several 
Bishops,  including  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  attempted 
to  protest  against  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  them  ; 
but  the  presiding  Cardinal  suppressed  all  objections 
with  a  declaration  that  the  Pope  had  so  ordained,  and 
that  his  decisions  could  not  be  called  in  question.  To 
this  declaration  the  minority  submitted.  Thereby  in 
effect  they  acknowledged  the  Pope's  power  to  determine 
the  Regulations.  This  has  been  called  "  the  first  of  the 
feeblenesses,  or  to  speak  more  indulgently,  the  resigna 
tions  of  the  minority." 2 

The  actual  product  of  the  Vatican  Council  consists 
of  two  Dogmatic  Constitutions  known  respectively  by 
their  opening  words  as  the  Constitution  Dei  Filius 
and  the  Constitution  Pastor  ^Eternus.  Of  these  the 
former  was  proclaimed  in  the  third  Public  Session, 
the  latter  in  the  fourth  Public  Session.  The  contents 
of  the  former  are  the  doctrine  of  God,  of  Revelation, 
of  Faith,  and  of  the  relation  between  Faith  and 
Reason.  The  latter  contains  the  Ultramontane  theory 

1  Ollivier,  i.  p.  466.  z  Ibid.  ii.  pp.  21-23. 


232     OPENING  OF  VATICAN  COUNCIL    [CHAP. 

of  the  Papacy,  and  especially  the  dogma  of  the  Pope's 
Infallibility.  It  is  with  this  last  subject  exclusively 
that  we  are  concerned. 

This  subject  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  not  mentioned 
among  the  causes  for  which  the  Council  was  assembled, 
nor  was  it  introduced  into  the  discussion  for  the  first 
three  months.  During  that  period  the  Bishops'  atten 
tion  was  devoted  to  discussions  on  faith ;  the  dis 
cipline  of  the  clergy ;  the  project  of  the  compilation 
of  a  new  Catechism,  for  universal  use,  in  place  of  all 
local  Catechisms  in  the  Roman  body.  Matters  such 
as  these  occupied  the  first  twenty-eight  Congregations. 
But  progress  was  excessively  slow :  partly  owing  to 
the  reluctance  of  the  minority  to  proceed,  under  fear 
of  what  the  future  would  produce,  and  under  dislike  of 
various  extreme  measures  proposed  to  them.  It  seems 
clear  that  the  Roman  authorities  had  not  anticipated 
so  much  persistent  opposition,  At  the  end  of  three 
months,  minority-Bishops  said  with  relief,  "We  have 
done  nothing,  and  that  is  a  great  deal."  The  Dogmatic 
Constitution  on  faith  was  expected  to  be  ready  for 
the  second  Public  Session  on  6th  January.  But  when 
the  date  arrived  the  doctrine  was  not  ready.  Conse 
quently  the  entire  Session  was  occupied  by  formal 
recitation  of  the  Tridentine  Creed. 

In  January  1870  the  crisis  became  acute  when 
Manning  and  other  members  of  the  Vatican  Council 
presented  the  Pope  with  an  Address,  urging  him  to 
declare  his  own  Infallibility. 

Upon  this  Dollinger  wrote  his  "  Few  Words  "  to  the 
Augsburg  Gazette.  He  pointed  out  with  all  possible 
emphasis  the  magnitude  of  the  suggested  revolution. 
He  declared  that  Papal  Infallibility  had  never  been 
believed  hitherto — believed,  that  is,  with  the  faith  due 
to  a  divine  revelation.  Between  the  faith  due  to  a  truth 


xvi.]  DOLLINGER'S   CRITICISMS  233 

divinely  revealed  through  the  Church,  and  the  accept 
ance  of  a  theological  theory,  the  difference  is  immense. 
Hitherto  there  had  been  conjectures,  opinions,  prob 
abilities,  even  human  certainty  in  individual  minds 
as  to  Papal  Infallibility ;  but  never  that  divine  faith 
which  is  the  response  of  the  Catholic  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church.  Dollinger  added  that  while  the 
Infallibilists'  Address  spoke  of  the  Pope  being  infallible 
when  instructing  the  entire  Church,  it  was  historically 
clear  that  all  papal  utterances  on  doctrine  during  the 
first  twelve  hundred  years  were  directed  to  individuals 
or  local  communities. 

The  effect  of  this  urgent  appeal  to  historic  certainties 
was  very  considerable.  Archbishop  Scherr,  Dollinger's 
diocesan,  had  a  very  uneasy  time  in  consequence  at 
the  hands  of  the  Jesuits  and  the  majority  in  Rome. 
Although  his  personal  conviction  and  sympathy  were 
with  the  learned  historian,  he  could  not  help  a  certain 
human  self-pity,  and  he  is  said  to  have  sighed,  "  What 
a  comfort  it  would  be  if  only  Dollinger  would  expire ! " 
But  the  vigorous  old  Professor  seemed  in  no  way  likely 
to  comply  with  the  archiepiscopal  wishes. 

A  further  stage  in  Vatican  procedure  was  reached 
when  Pius  IX.  imposed  upon  the  Council,  on  22nd 
February  1870,  a  new  series  of  Regulations  which 
were  designed  to  accelerate  progress,  and  to  drive 
things  forward  to  their  intended  conclusion. 

These  New  Regulations  as  to  procedure  were  intro 
duced  into  the  Council  without  its  consultation  or 
consent.  They  were  simply  imposed  upon  the 
Council,  from  without ;  by  the  same  authority  which 
directed  everything  without  personally  appearing. 
The  main  features  of  the  New  Regulations  are  two. 
The  first  rule  authorised  the  Presidents  to  control  any 
individual  speaker  who  in  their  opinion  wandered  from 


234     OPENING  OF  VATICAN  COUNCIL    [CHAP. 

the  point  Another  rule  gave  the  Presidents  power,  at 
the  request  of  ten  Fathers  and  with  the  approval  of  the 
majority,  to  closure  the  discussion.  This  second  Regula 
tion  involved  tremendous  possibilities.  It  placed  the 
minority  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the  majority.  It  thereby 
determined  a  principle  more  momentous  still — namely, 
that  Decrees  of  Faith  could  be  imposed  on  the  Church 
by  mere  majority  of  votes.  Hitherto  the  minority  had 
taken  refuge  in  the  principle  that  no  opinion  could 
be  elevated  into  a  dogma  of  faith  without  the  Council's 
moral  unanimity.  The  existence  of  an  opposition  so 
extensive  as  between  one  hundred  and  two  hundred 
Bishops  rendered  the  Church  secure  on  that  theory 
from  the  imposition  of  the  Ultramontane  conception 
of  papal  prerogatives.  But  the  New  Regulations  swept 
that  plea  of  moral  unanimity  entirely  away.  Whatever 
was  the  intention  of  its  propounders,  its  effect  is  clear ; 
and  that  effect  was  disastrous  to  the  men  who  clung 
to  what  they  regarded  as  the  ancient  truth.  Naturally 
the  depression  of  the  minority  was  profound. 

Dollinger  wrote  a  very  powerful  criticism  upon  these 
New  Regulations.1  He  characterised  the  existing  Roman 
Synod  as  the  first  in  history  in  which  instructions  as  to 
procedure  had  been  imposed  upon  the  Bishops  without 
their  co-operation  or  approval.  The  New  Regulations 
concentrated  all  real  power  in  the  hands  of  the  presiding 
Cardinals  and  the  Commission  of  Suggestions,  so  that 
the  Council  itself,  as  opposed  to  these,  had  neither  power 
nor  will.  Equally  momentous  was  the  fact  that  doctrine 
was  to  be  determined  by  majorities.  This  was  an 
intrusion  of  parliamentary  forms  into  sy nodical  procedure 
— with  this  tremendous  difference:  that  whereas  laws 
passed  by  majorities  are  subject  to  subsequent  revision 
and  recall,  dogmatic  resolutions  are,  if  the  Council  be 

1  Reusch,  Declaration:  and  Decrees. 


xvi.]  DOLLINGER'S   CRITICISMS  235 

really  ecumenical,  irrevocable  and  valid  for  all  future 
time.  The  Infallibilist  majority  would  naturally  accept 
the  dogmatic  proposals  introduced  by  the  Commission 
of  Suggestions ;  for  that  Commission,  which  alone 
possessed  the  privilege  of  introducing  doctrine  into  the 
Council,  and  of  determining  what  amendments  should 
be  admitted,  and  the  form  which  those  amendments 
should  take,  consisted  of  the  most  pronounced  advocates 
of  Infallibility.  And  this  decision  by  majorities  was 
utterly  alien  to  the  traditional  methods  of  Christendom. 
"For  eighteen  hundred  years,"  said  Dollinger,  "it  has 
been  held  as  a  principle  of  the  Church  that  decrees 
concerning  faith  and  doctrine  should  be  adopted  by 
at  least  moral  unanimity."  And  this  because  Bishops 
at  a  Council  are  primarily  witnesses  to  the  faith  which 
they  and  their  Churches  have  received  ;  secondly,  judges 
to  examine  whether  the  conditions  of  universality,  per 
petuity,  and  consent  are  fulfilled  by  a  given  doctrine ; 
whether  it  is  really  a  universal  doctrine  of  the  whole 
Church,  and  a  constituent  portion  of  the  original  Deposit 
divinely  intrusted  to  the  Church's  keeping,  and  there 
fore  a  doctrine  which  every  Christian  must  affirm. 
Consequently  the  judicial  function  of  the  episcopate 
cannot  exclude  the  past.  It  extends  across  all  history. 

"  A  Council  only  makes  dogmatic  decrees  on  things 
already  universally  believed  in  the  Church,  as  being 
testified  by  the  Scriptures  and  by  Tradition,  or  which 
are  contained,  as  evident  and  clear  deductions,  in  the 
principles  which  have  been  already  believed  and  taught. 
Should,  for  example,  the  Infallibility  of  a  single 
individual  be  put  in  the  place  of  the  freedom  from 
error  of  the  whole  Church,  as  formerly  believed  and 
taught,  this  would  be  no  development  nor  explanation 
of  what  was  hitherto  implicitly  believed,  nor  is  it  a 
deduction  that  follows  with  logical  necessity,  but  simply 


236    OPENING  OF  VATICAN  COUNCIL    [CHAP. 

the  very  opposite  of  the  earlier  doctrine,  which  thereby 
would  be  subverted." 

Dollinger  contended  further  that  all  theologians  agree 
that  the  ecumenical  character  of  a  Council  depends, 
among  other  essential  conditions,  upon  the  possession 
of  real  freedom.  Real  freedom  does  not  consist  in  mere 
immunity  from  physical  force.  Fear,  ambition,  avarice, 
as  effectually  destroy  true  freedom  as  bodily  constraint. 
Moreover,  urged  Dollinger,  even  if  a  Council  be 
ecumenical  in  its  vocation,  it  does  not  follow  that  it 
is  also  ecumenical  in  its  procedures  or  in  its  con 
clusions.  "  It  is  still  necessary  that  the  authority  which 
stands  ever  above  every  Council — the  testimony  of  the 
whole  Church — should  come  forward  and  decide." 

This  was  Bellinger's  final  protest  before  the  decision.1 
A  Bishop  of  the  majority  replied  by  prohibiting 
theological  students  in  his  diocese  from  attending 
Dollinger's  lectures.  Pius  congratulated  the  Bishop  on 
this  action,  and  wished  that  others  would  follow  his 
example ;  which  however  they  declined  to  do.  A  war 
of  pamphlets  followed.  Dollinger  was  attacked  in  a 
party  newspaper  as  having  by  his  recent  writings 
placed  himself  outside  the  Catholic  Church.  Hotzl,2  a 
Franciscan  lecturer  on  theology,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Augsberg,  published  a  pamphlet  entitled,  "  Is  Dollinger 
a  Heretic?"  This  was  too  much  for  the  King  of 
Bavaria.  He  expressed  in  a  birthday  letter  the 
earnest  hope  that  Dollinger  might  long  be  spared  in 
undiminished  mental  and  bodily  powers  to  the  service 
of  religion  and  of  learning.  Hotzl's  imprudent  act 
awakened  so  many  demonstrations  of  sympathy  and 
approval  towards  Dollinger  that  it  was  thought  wise  to 
transfer  Hotzl  to  Rome. 

1  Friedrich,  iii.  p.  541.  8  Ibid.  p.  543. 


xvi.]  MINORITY   PROTESTS  237 

It  was  impossible,  of  course,  that  these  New  Regula 
tions,  involving  for  the  minority  such  tremendous 
possibilities,  should  be  tamely  acquiesced  in  without  a 
protest.  The  protest  came,  partly  in  the  form  of  written 
appeals  to  the  Pope,  and  partly  in  speeches  in  the 
Congregation.  One  of  the  ablest  orators  in  the  Council, 
the  brilliant  Strossmayer,  being  called  to  order  by  the 
President,  uttered  against  the  Rules  the  following 
impassioned  criticism : — 

"  I  am  persuaded  that  the  perpetual  and  unmistakable 
rule  of  faith  and  tradition  always  was  and  always  must 
remain  that  nothing  could  be  passed  without  morally 
unanimous  consent.  A  Council  which  ignored  this  rule, 
and  attempted  to  define  dogmas  of  faith  and  morals  by 
a  numerical  majority,  binding  thereby  the  conscience  of 
the  Catholic  world  under  penalties  of  eternal  life  and 
death,  would,  according  to  my  most  profound  conviction, 
have  transgressed  its  lawful  bounds." l 

As  Strossmayer  uttered  the  closing  words  the  Council 
Chamber  was  filled  with  the  wildest  tumult,  says  Lord 
Acton,  and  the  Session  was  broken  up.2 

Written  protests  were  sent  to  the  Pope  against  the 
New  Regulations  by  the  minority,  but  no  relief  was 
given.  What  were  they  now  to  do  ?  They  had  com 
plained,  on  ground  of  conscience,  that  the  freedom  of  the 
Council  was  impaired.  This  complaint  affected  the 
Council's  validity.  Could  they  reasonably  continue 
their  work  within  it?  On  the  other  hand,  no  actual 
Decree  was  threatened  as  yet.  Was  it  wise  to  withdraw 
before  the  repulsive  doctrine  was  introduced  ?  The 
instincts  of  caution  prevailed  over  bolder  and  more 
resolute  lines.  The  minority  protested,  but  submitted.8 

1    Lord  Acton,  Vatican  Council,  p.  92.  2  Ibid.  p.  92. 

3  Friedrich,  iv.  p.  764. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  VATICAN   DECISION 

IF  the  actual  subject  of  Infallibility  had  not  yet  entered 
the  Council  for  discussion,  it  was  anxiously  or  eagerly 
debated  in  every  mind.  As  far  back  as  the  beginning 
of  the  year  (28th  January  1870),  a  petition1  under  the 
instigation  of  Archbishop  Manning  was  sent  to  the 
Commission  on  Faith,  entreating  that  the  doctrine  of 
Infallibility  might  be  brought  before  the  Council.  This 
petition  for  a  Decree  on  Papal  Infallibility  was  based 
upon  the  following  grounds.  It  was,  they  said,  opportune 
and  necessary,  because,  according  to  the  universal  and 
constant  tradition  of  the  Church,  papal  decrees  of 
doctrine  could  not  be  reformed ;  because  some  who 
gloried  in  the  name  of  Catholic  were  presuming  to 
teach  that  deferential  submission  to  papal  authority 
was  sufficient ;  that  one  might  acquiesce  in  silence 
without  inward  mental  consent,  or  might  at  any  rate 
accord  a  merely  provisional  assent  until  the  Church 
itself  endorsed  or  modified  the  decree  in  question. 
This  independence  was,  they  considered,  injurious  and 
subversive  of  authority.  Prevalent  disputes  made 
definition  a  positive  necessity.  If  the  Vatican  Council, 
thus  challenged,  neglected  to  testify  to  Catholic  Faith, 
the  Catholic  world  would  fall  into  uncertainty,  and  the 

1  Acta,  p. '923. 

238 


CHAP,  xvii.]      PETITIONS  TO  THE  POPE       239 

heretical  world  would  rejoice.  Various  local  synods, 
moreover,  had  already  passed  resolutions  for  Papal 
Infallibility. 

Petitions  were  also  issued  on  the  other  side.  Copies 
of  a  circular  had  reached  them  requesting  the  definition 
of  Papal  Infallibility.  Accordingly  they  are  constrained 
to  address  the  Pope.  This  is  not  a  time  in  which  the 
rights  of  the  Apostolic  See  are  questioned  by  Catholics, 
and  it  is  undesirable  to  add  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Council 
of  Trent.  The  difficulties  which  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  and  the  genuine  documents  and  facts  of  history 
suggest  to  many  minds,  on  the  subject  of  Infallibility, 
preclude  the  definition  of  this  doctrine  as  a  truth  divinely 
revealed,  until  the  difficulties  have  been  removed.  They 
implore  the  Pope  not  to  impose  such  discussions  upon 
them.1 

This  was  in  January.  Nothing  was  immediately  done. 
But  on  the  6th  of  March  a  notice  was  sent  to  the 
members  individually,  informing  them  that,  in  response 
to  the  appeal  of  many  Bishops,  the  Pope  had  consented 
to  the  introduction  of  Papal  Infallibility  into  the  Council. 
They  were  accordingly  requested  to  send  in  their  written 
remarks  within  ten  days. 

Accordingly  written  criticisms  were  sent  in  to  the 
Commission  on  Faith.  And  it  is  to  this  fact  that  we 
owe  a  large  portion  of  our  knowledge  of  the  actual 
argument  employed  by  Infallibilists  by  the  minority 
in  the  Council.  For  their  criticisms  were  condensed 
and  printed  for  distribution  among  the  members,  and 
copies  of  this  have  survived  the  Council.2  This  is  all 
the  more  important  since  the  proceedings  of  the  Council 
were  nominally  secret,  and  no  official  report  of  the 
speeches  was  ever  given  to  the  world,  and  the  actual 
minutes  are  buried  in  the  Vatican  archives.  A  Jesuit 
1  Acta>  p.  944.  2  Friedrich,  Documenta. 


240  THE   VATICAN   DECISION         [CHAP. 

German  writer l  on  the  Council  has  had  access  to  these, 
and  has  given  extracts  and  accounts  of  them  ;  but  no 
complete  account  has  ever  yet  appeared.  Meanwhile 
great  value  must  attach  to  the  printed  criticisms  of 
the  doctrine.  These,  as  was  natural,  are  chiefly  the 
work  of  the  opposition.  Some  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
nine  Bishops  replied,  of  whom  nearly  one  hundred  were 
against  the  decree.  Its  advocates  contented  themselves 
with  general  expressions  of  approval.  The  opposition 
to  the  proposed  definition  was  begun  by  the  criticisms 
of  Cardinal  Rauscher. 

Rauscher  said  that  the  question  was  not  whether  the 
instructions  of  the  Pope  should  be  obeyed,  but  whether 
they  must  be  received  with  the  faith  due  to  God.  The 
salvation  of  souls  and  the  honour  of  the  Council  demand 
that  the  greatest  caution  should  be  exercised  before 
imposing  this  upon  the  faith  of  Christian  people.  He 
confessed  himself,  although  prepared  to  defend  what  the 
Council  might  decree,  unable  to  solve  the  difficulties 
which  would  arise.  To  those  already  persuaded  convic 
tion  would  not  be  difficult.  But  Bishops  in  Austria  and 
Germany  would  have  a  difficult  time.  "  The  subterfuges 
employed  by  not  a  few  theologians  in  the  case  of 
Honorius  would  only  expose  the  writers  to  derision." 
To  propound  such  sophistries  appears  to  him  unworthy 
alike  of  the  episcopal  office  and  of  the  subject  in 
question,  which  ought  to  be  treated  in  the  fear  of 
God.  Even  prudence  would  prohibit  the  use  of  such 
artifices.2 

Bishop  Ketteler,  Bishop  of  Maintz,  urged  that  accord 
ing  to  the  principle  observed  by  the  Fathers  and 
sanctioned  by  Councils,  dogmatic  decrees  should  only 
be  resorted  to  under  imperative  necessity.  In  many 
districts  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  almost 

1  Granderath.  8  Friedrich,  Documtnta. 


xvii.]  EPISCOPAL  CRITICISMS  241 

or  altogether  unknown  to  the  faithful.  Were  it  decreed, 
many  Catholics  in  this  age  of  indifference  would  remain 
within  the  Church  without  believing  it,  to  the  grave 
detriment  of  Religion. 

Bishop  Hefele  said  that  if  the  error  of  Gallicanism 
consisted  in  separating  the  Church  from  the  Pope,  the 
present  proposal  committed  the  converse  error  of 
separating  the  Pope  from  the  Church.  We  Catholics 
can  accept  neither  of  these  extreme  positions.  More 
over  we  have  been  told  that  the  subject  of  Infallibility 
is  the  Church ;  we  are  now  told  that  it  is  the  Pope. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  these  two  subjects  can 
be  united,  unless  the  one  renders  the  other  superfluous, 
and  indeed  excludes  it.  The  theory  of  Papal  Infallibility 
seemed  to  him  founded  neither  in  Scripture  nor  in 
History.  The  letter  of  Leo  to  Flavian  was  not  accepted 
by  the  fourth  Ecumenical  Council  because  it  came 
from  an  infallible  writer,  but  because  it  contained  an 
apostolic  doctrine  ;  nor  was  it  accepted  until  the  doubts 
of  certain  Bishops  had  been  removed. 

Another  Bishop  declared  that  if  such  Infallibility 
were  dogmatically  defined,  the  result  in  his  own  diocese, 
where  not  a  trace  of  Tradition  upon  the  subject  existed, 
would  be  grievous  losses  to  the  Church.  Nor  could  he 
personally  profess  himself  convinced  of  it. 

Melchers,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  was  prepared  to 
accept  Papal  Infallibility  as  his  personal  belief,  but 
was  unable  to  assent  to  its  erection  into  a  dogma ; 
for  he  could  see  no  necessity.  The  authority  of  the 
Holy  See  was  never  greater  than  in  modern  times.  And 
it  is  neither  customary  nor  expedient  to  impose  new 
dogmatic  decrees  without  necessity.  The  subject  of 
Papal  Infallibility  in  particular  is  a  controverted  subject. 
Many  learned  and  orthodox  persons  considered  its 
dogmatic  definition  impossible,  owing  to  the  serious 

Q 


242  THE   VATICAN    DECISION  [CHAP. 

difficulties  presented  by  history  and  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers :  the  facts  showing  that  there  had  never 
been  unanimity  or  universality  of  consent  on  this  matter 
in  Christendom.  Nor  was  it  easy  to  see  how  a  definition 
could  be  composed  which  would  not  leave  space  for 
numerous  uncertainties  and  controversies  as  to  its 
meaning  and  application  to  past  and  future  events. 
And,  among  men  disposed  to  accept  the  opinion, 
there  were  many  destitute  of  that  certainty  of 
conviction  which  is  an  indispensable  pre-requisite  for 
imposing  the  doctrine,  without  grave  moral  injury, 
upon  others  as  essential  to  be  believed  under  penalty 
of  eternal  damnation.  There  was  no  hope  of  real 
unanimous  consent ;  for  it  was  impossible  to  deny  that 
a  large  proportion  of  the  Bishops  was  adverse  to  the 
definition.  And  hitherto  in  the  Church  of  God  it  had 
never  been  the  custom,  nor  is  it  lawful,  to  establish 
new  dogmatic  definitions  without  moral  unanimity 
among  the  Bishops  assembled  in  Council. 

Another  Bishop  insisted  emphatically  that  no  con 
sideration  ought  to  move  men  to  create  an  article 
of  faith,  except  only  a  clear  knowledge  that  God  has 
revealed  it,  and  that  it  is  certainly  contained  in  Scripture 
or  Tradition.  For  a  Bishop  to  vote  this  doctrine  merely 
out  of  regard  for  the  Holy  See  would  be  a  mortal  sin. 
There  was  no  constant  Tradition  for  Infallibility.  On 
the  contrary,  the  opposite  opinion  appears  in  numberless 
records.  St  Augustine  is  particularly  clear,  and  seems 
to  have  had  no  conception  whatever  of  the  doctrine. 
Bossuet's  Exposition  could  not  possibly  have  been 
approved  when  the  doctrine  prevailed,  for  he  only 
mentions  the  primacy. 

Another,  who  protests  his  abhorrence  of  all  endeavours 
to  detract  from  the  primacy  of  the  Pope,  was  yet  con 
strained  to  plead  that  nothing  should  be  said  in  this 


xvii.]  EPISCOPAL  CRITICISMS  243 

Council  either  concerning  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff  over  the  entire  Church  and  General  Council, 
or  concerning  his  Infallibility. 

Another  Bishop  protested  that  this  ascription  to  the 
Pope  of  absolute  or  unconditional  Infallibility,  separate, 
i.e.  independent  of  the  consent  of  the  Episcopate — 
personal,  that  is  to  say,  uttered  at  will  —  is  neither 
opportune  nor  lawful :  not  opportune,  for  it  will  involve 
souls  and  religion  in  innumerable  difficulties ;  not  law 
ful,  because  founded  on  no  certain  argument  either  of 
Scripture,  or  Tradition,  or  Councils ;  and  because  it 
would  revolutionise  the  constitution  which  Christ  has 
imposed  upon  His  Church. 

Next  came  a  witness  from  the  Irish  Catholics.  This 
Bishop  said  that  although  during  the  last  thirty-one  years 
before  the  Council  assembled  the  doctrine  of  the  Infalli 
bility  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  had  been  taught  in  the  Irish 
schools,  and  he  himself  during  fifteen  years  had  inculcated 
it  upon  the  young  ecclesiastics  entrusted  to  his  care  ;  yet 
for  two  hundred  years  it  had  always  been  taught  in  the 
schools  that  the  decrees  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  were  not 
irreformable,  except  with  the  consent,  either  expressed 
or  tacit,  of  the  Episcopate.  Therefore  this  doctrine  of 
personal  Infallibility  of  Roman  Pontiffs  could  not  reach 
the  people  and  sink  into  the  minds  of  the  faithful  laity. 
Moreover,  a  denial  of  personal  Infallibility  had  been 
publicly  made  when  the  Irish  Bishops  were  interrogated 
by  the  English  Government.  Nor  was  any  censure  to 
this  day  ever  uttered  against  the  doctrine  which  pre 
vailed  in  Ireland.  The  Irish  Catechisms  had  always 
taught  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church,  meaning  the 
Bishops  or  teaching  body  in  agreement  with  the  Pope. 

Sixteen  other  Bishops  joyfully  accept  the  doctrine, 
and  declare  it  supported  by  the  entire  Dominican  Order, 
Twenty-five  others  did  the  same. 


244  THE   VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

Another  Bishop  declared  that  the  series  of  three 
texts  commonly  quoted  on  behalf  of  Papal  Infallibility 
("Thou  art  Peter."  .  .  .  "I  have  prayed  for  thee"  .  .  .  "Feed 
My  sheep  ")  could  not  possibly  prove  that  the  authority 
to  teach  and  the  privilege  of  Infallibility  were  given 
exclusively  to  St  Peter,  for  another  series  of  texts  exists 
in  which  the  Apostles  collectively  with  St  Peter  are  made 
recipients  of  the  same  authority  ("  Go  ye  therefore  .  .  . 
teaching  them  ...  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  He  will 
send  you  another  Comforter  .  .  .  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost").  Who  will  dare  to  say  that  the  Apostles 
and  their  successors  received  nothing  in  these  words? 
Who  does  not  see  that  all  power  was  directly 
bestowed  upon  them  all  ?  Now,  since  the  Bishops  are 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  receive  direct  from 
Christ  a  definite  share  in  the  government  of  the  Church, 
it  is  impossible  to  allow  that  the  entire  and  absolute 
authority  and  power  to  rule  and  teach,  coupled  with 
the  privilege  of  Infallibility,  belong  to  the  Pope  alone. 
Such  power  must  reside  in  the  Pope  together  with  the 
Episcopate,  as  the  successor  of  Peter  and  the  Apostles. 
If  the  Pope  possesses  a  principal  portion  of  authority, 
yet  it  is  essentially  limited  by  the  rights  of  the  Episcopate, 
which  are  equally  Divine.  Thus  it  cannot  be  absolute. 
We  hold  it  for  certain,  this  Bishop  continued,  that  by 
no  argument  from  the  first  five  centuries  of  the  Church 
can  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  be  established.  The 
early  centuries  never  recognised  absolute  infallible 
teaching  power  in  the  Pope  alone ;  but  in  the  entire 
Episcopate,  of  which  he  was  the  head.  If  nothing  is 
definable  which  does  not  conform  to  the  test  of  univer 
sality  from  the  beginning,  how  can  Infallibility  of  the 
Pope  ever  become  defined  ? 

Another  Bishop  asserted  that  nothing  more  mischievous 
than  this  unfortunate  proposition  could  be  conceived ; 


xvii.]  EPISCOPAL   CRITICISMS  245 

nothing  more  dangerous  to  the  authority  of  the  Church 
and  the  Holy  See.  It  was  not  right  to  separate  either 
the  head  from  the  body  nor  the  body  from  the  head 
in  the  discussion  of  this  doctrine.  Infallibility  was  a 
prerogative  of  the  entire  body  of  the  Church.  The 
difficulties  which  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility 
create  were  endless  and  almost  insoluble.  The  conse 
quences  of  a  definition  would  be  bad  and  dangerous. 
It  was  therefore  to  be  hoped  that  the  Pope  will,  of  his 
own  accord,  set  this  cause  of  discord  aside.  Many  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Vatican  Council  were  persuaded  that 
such  an  example  of  humility  and  self-denial  on  the  part 
of  the  Pope  would  really  increase  the  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  and  render  the  name  of  Pius  IX.  glorious 
in  the  annals  of  the  Church. 

Another  member  of  the  Council — Bishop  Clifford,  one 
of  the  three  candidates  proposed  by  the  Chapter  for  the 
Archbishopric  of  Westminster,  and  who  therefore,  if  the 
will  of  the  Roman  Catholics  in  England  had  not  been 
overruled  by  Pius  IX.,  might  have  been  in  Manning's 
place — declared  that  the  definition  of  this  opinion  as 
of  faith  would  be  the  greatest  hindrance  to  the  con 
version  of  Protestants  and  a  stone  of  stumbling  to 
many  Catholics.  What  good  it  could  produce  he  was 
unable  to  see.  It  would  be  especially  disastrous  in 
England  ;  for  at  the  time  of  the  Catholic  emancipation 
from  civil  disabilities  the  Bishops  and  theologians  were 
publicly  questioned  by  Parliament  whether  English 
Catholics  believed  that  the  Pope  could  impose  definitions 
on  faith  and  morals  apart  from  the  consent,  either  tacit 
or  express,  of  the  Church.  All  the  Bishops,  among  them 
the  predecessor  of  the  present  Archbishop  of  Dublin, 
together  with  the  theologians,  replied  that  Catholics  did 
not  maintain  this  doctrine.  This  statement  was  entered 
in  the  Parliamentary  Acts.  On  the  strength  of  these 


246  THE   VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

assertions,  Parliament  admitted  the  English  Catholics 
to  civil  liberty.  How  will  Protestants  believe  that 
Catholics  are  loyal  to  their  honour  and  good  faith  if 
they  see  them  acquiring  political  advantage  by  pro 
fessing  that  Papal  Infallibility  is  no  part  of  the  Catholic 
religion,  and  afterwards,  when  those  advantages  are 
secured,  departing  from  their  public  profession  and 
asserting  the  contrary? 

Bishop  Purcell,  an  American  Bishop,  was  of  opinion 
that  a  definition  of  Papal  Infallibility  would  be  not  only 
inopportune  but  also  dangerous.  It  would,  if  passed, 
effectually  frustrate  conversions  in  the  United  States. 
Bishops  in  controversy  with  Protestants  will  be  unable 
to  refute  them :  for  Protestants  will  say,  "  Hitherto 
this  doctrine  was,  so  you  asserted,  an  optional  opinion 
in  the  Church ;  now  you  declare  it  to  be  a  dogma  of 
the  faith.  Either  therefore  your  former  assertion  was 
untrue,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  has  suffered 
variation.  In  which  case,  what  becomes  of  your 
objection  to  Protestant  variations  ? " 

Another  Bishop,  on  the  contrary,  maintained  that  the 
definition  was  not  only  opportune,  but  also  necessary,  in 
order  to  deepen  reverence  for  highest  authority,  and 
to  suppress  the  systematic  rebellion  which  is  very 
widely  spread.  He  desires  that  a  Canon  should  be 
formulated  to  anathematise  all  who  hold  the  opposite 
view. 

Another  Bishop  declared  that  he  could  see  no 
necessity  for  any  definition.  If  there  were,  eighteen 
centuries  would  not  have  elapsed  without  one  or  other 
of  the  Councils  defining  it.  Nor  could  he  see  the  least 
utility.  They  who  will  not  hear  the  Church  certainly 
will  not  hear  the  Pope.  In  the  present  discussion  now 
raging  evil  influences  daily  increase.  There  were  many 


xvn.]  EPISCOPAL   CRITICISMS  247 

facts  of  history  better  buried  in  oblivion,  which  this 
discussion  proclaims  abroad.  So  much  for  the  oppor 
tuneness  of  the  dogma.  What  if  the  doctrine  itself  be 
without  secure  foundation  ?  Quite  recently  the  Bishop 
had  vowed  never  to  interpret  Holy  Scripture  except  in 
accordance  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers. 
Now,  previously  to  the  Council,  he  had  always  interpreted 
the  text  "  I  have  prayed  for  thee  "  in  the  sense  of  Papal 
Infallibility.  But  having  begun  to  examine  for  himself, 
for  the  purposes  of  the  Council,  he  finds  that  nearly  all 
the  extracts  from  the  earlier  Fathers  given  in  theological 
manuals  in  behalf  of  Infallibility  (as  in  the  works  of 
St  Alphonso,  Perrone,  and  others)  are  either  inaccurate, 
or  derived  from  forgeries.  What  the  extracts  from  the 
early  Fathers  prove  is  primacy.  They  do  not  prove 
Infallibility. 

Conciliar  definitions,  says  another  Bishop,  ought  not 
to  be  imposed  by  superior  numerical  force,  but  by 
intellectual  persuasion.  In  the  Council  of  Trent  so 
great  was  the  deference  accorded  to  the  minority  that 
a  decision  was  postponed  for  several  years  because 
thirty-seven  of  the  Fathers  declined  to  concur  with  the 
opinion  of  the  majority. 

Another  Bishop  affirmed  that  in  his  view  a  definition 
of  Infallibility  would  be  the  suicide  of  the  Church. 
Quite  recently,  certain  Anglicans,  who  six  months  ago 
came  over  to  Catholic  unity,  returned  at  once  to 
Anglicanism,  on  reading  the  Archbishop  of  West 
minster's  imprudent  Pastoral. 

Bishop  Kenrick  made  a  very  lengthy  and  elaborate 
protest.  He  appealed  to  Augustine's  defence  of 
Cyprian's  opposition  to  Pope  Stephen.  Augustine 
manifestly  was  ignorant  of  pontifical  Infallibility,  other 
wise  he  could  not  possibly  have  argued  as  he  did. 
The  oft-quoted  phrase,  "Peter  has  spoken  by  Leo," 


248  THE   VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

signified  nothing  more  when  originally  uttered  by  the 
Bishops  at  Chalcedon  than  that  Leo's  doctrine  agreed 
with  their  own  convictions.  In  the  Sixth  Council  at 
Constantinople,  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  in 
reference  to  the  Letters  of  Pope  Agatho,  asked  for 
copies  to  compare  with  the  traditional  testimonies 
of  that  Patriarchate ;  after  which  he  would  give  his 
reply.  Accordingly  the  Archbishop  compared  the  papal 
letters ;  and,  finding  that  their  contents  harmonised 
with  the  Eastern  teaching,  accepted  them.  Moreover, 
supreme  papal  authority  does  not  include  Infallibility. 
Kenrick  considered  great  differences  to  exist  between 
the  dogma  of  Immaculate  Conception  and  that  of  ponti 
fical  Infallibility.  The  latter  invades  the  rights  of  the 
Episcopate,  and  imposes  upon  the  faithful  the  necessity 
of  believing  that  Roman  Bishops  have  never  erred  in 
matters  of  faith,  a  statement  which  indisputable  facts 
of  history  appear  to  refute ;  and  also  of  believing  that 
Roman  Bishops  will  never  err  in  future,  which  indeed 
we  hope,  but  are  unable  to  believe  as  a  certainty  of  the 
faith.  The  rule  to  be  followed  is,  that  no  innovation 
should  be  accepted  in  the  Church ;  that  nothing  should 
be  required  of  the  faithful,  except  that  which  has  been 
believed  always  everywhere  and  by  all. 

When  the  ten  days'  interval  was  passed,  and  the 
Council  resumed  its  work,  there  was  manifested  on 
the  part  of  the  authorities  a  decided  hesitation.  This 
was  due  not  to  the  protests  of  the  minority,  or  to  any 
force  in  their  numbers  or  their  arguments.  It  was  the 
outcome  of  political  rather  than  ecclesiastical  causes. 
For  Italy  aspired  to  become  a  consolidated  kingdom, 
with  its  capital  at  Rome.  The  entire  mediaeval  inherit 
ance  of  the  Papacy,  the  States  of  the  Church,  could  not 
be  held  by  any  force  at  the  Pope's  disposal ;  and  might, 
but  for  external  protection,  be  at  any  moment  swept 


xvn.]  EPISCOPAL  CRITICISMS  249 

away.  That  protection  was  provided  by  France. 
French  soldiers  guarded  the  city,  kept  the  Italians  out, 
and  rendered  the  continuance  of  the  Council  possible. 
The  armed  intervention  of  France  was  described  by 
the  Archbishop  of  Paris l  as  a  necessary  expedient  but 
not  a  permanent  solution.  It  provided  a  temporary 
security,  during  which  the  Vatican  Council  was  held. 
It  is  impossible  not  to  admire  the  sagacity  which  seized 
the  occasion.  A  little  later,  and  it  could  not  have  been 
done.  But  security  depended  on  French  goodwill. 

"  If  any  one  dreams,"  said  Antonelli,  "  that  there 
exists  for  us  any  human  help,  except  the  forces  of 
France,  he  must  be  blind."2 

But  France  at  this  critical  moment  showed  signs  of 
uneasiness.  It  felt  that  its  protection  was  being  utilised 
for  the  promotion  of  theories  which  it  strongly  disliked.3 
Count  Daru,  head  of  the  French  Ministry,  sent  an 
emphatic  protest  to  Rome,  in  which  he  declared  that 
the  adoption  of  Ultramontane  theories  could  not  but 
alienate  from  Catholicism  many  whom  it  would  be  a 
duty  to  win.  The  Holy  See  was  making  the  relation 
between  the  Church  and  the  State  more  difficult  and 
strained.  In  particular,  the  work  of  the  French  Ministry 
was  thereby  made  exceedingly  difficult.  They  would 
soon  have  to  discuss  in  the  Chamber  the  presence  of 
French  troops  in  papal  territory.  How  can  their 
presence  be  justified  if  the  Pope  rejects  the  principles 
of  liberty  which  are  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 
modern  Governments  ?  The  writer  confesses  that  he  was 
personally  placed  in  a  position  most  discouraging  to  a 
devoted  adherent  of  the  Roman  cause.  Public  opinion 
in  France  was  already  amazed  to  find  the  Council 

1  Guillermin,  Darboy,  p.  206. 

2  Bourgeois  et  Clermont,  Rome  et  Napoleon,  iii.  p.  322  (1907). 
8  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  89. 


250  THE   VATICAN    DECISION  [CHAP. 

imprisoned  within  the  limits  of  a  programme  which 
invaded  the  freedom  of  the  Bishops.  Nothing  could 
be  more  opposed  to  the  ancient  rules  of  the  Church. 
Never  had  the  Holy  See  hitherto  restricted,  or  rather 
suppressed,  the  lawful  independence  which  Councils 
have  always  possessed  in  forming  their  own  Congrega 
tions  and  choosing  their  own  officials  and  regulating 
their  own  procedure.  The  history  of  these  great 
Assemblies  offers  no  precedent  for  the  forms  imposed 
to-day ;  and  we  have  only  too  much  reason  to  say 
that  deliberations  so  arranged  and  conducted  will  only 
result  in  resolutions  not  to  the  real  interest  of  the 
Church.1 

We  can  well  understand  that  the  receipt  of  such  a 
letter,  from  such  a  source,  caused  great  uneasiness  in 
the  Papal  Court.  No  wonder  if,  at  the  critical  moment, 
when  everything  seemed  in  their  grasp,  they  yet 
hesitated  and  delayed.  The  question  to  be  determined 
at  Rome  was,  What  did  this  manifesto  mean?  Was 
this  present  attitude  serious?  a  prelude  to  actions 
more  serious  still?2  No  wonder  if  Pius  temporised, 
and  diverted  the  attention  of  his  Council  for  the 
moment  to  other  themes.  So  the  subject  of  faith  was 
reintroduced.  However,  on  nth  April,  a  telegram  was 
received  in  Rome  :  "  Daru  resigned.  Ollivier  succeeds 
him.  Council  free."  That  is  to  say,  of  course,  free  from 
a  papal  point  of  view. 

The  fact  was,  that  although  Napoleon  III.  had  no 
desire  to  promote  the  extension  of  papal  power,  yet 
in  the  weakness  of  the  monarchy  and  increasingly 
republican  tendencies  of  France,  he  could  not  afford 
to  offend  the  Ultramontanes.  He  was  therefore  com 
pelled  by  a  cruel  irony  to  protect  the  Pope,  and  enable 
him  to  reach  the  summit  of  absolute  power.  With- 

1  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  90.  2  Ibid.  ii.  p.  245. 


xvii.]          THE  INFLUENCE  OF  FRANCE       251 

drawal  from  Rome  while  its  Episcopate  was  assembled 
would  be  a  declaration  of  hostility  to  Catholicism  upon 
which  France  dared  not  venture.1  Accordingly,  the 
political  obstruction  being  now  removed,  the  Presiding 
Legate  informed  the  Council  that  many  Bishops  had 
petitioned  the  Pope  to  forego  the  consideration  of  all 
other  subjects,  and  to  proceed  at  once  to  the  discussion 
of  Papal  Infallibility  ;  and  to  these  petitions  the  Pope 
had  assented. 

To  realise  the  situation  fully  it  is  now  necessary  to 
fix  attention  on  a  select  and  powerful  body  at  work 
behind  the  Council — the  famous  Commission  of  Sug 
gestions.  This  was  a  select  Committee  of  twenty- 
five,  including  Cardinals,  Patriarchs,  Archbishops,  all 
appointed  by  the  Pope ;  their  momentous  function 
being  to  receive  and  criticise  all  suggestions  of  subjects 
upon  which  the  Council  might  deliberate.  Nothing 
could  enter  the  Council  at  all  until  endorsed  by  this 
Commission. 

It  was  pointed  out  by  Infallibilists  that  the  members 
of  the  Commission  of  Suggestions  represented  all 
portions  of  the  Catholic  world :  to  which  the  minority 
replied  that  whatever  the  geographical  distribution,  all 
opinions  were  excluded  except  one.  This  was  not 
exactly  accurate.  But  within  the  chosen  twenty-five 
were  such  advanced  Ultramontanes  as  Cullen,  Arch 
bishop  of  Dublin  ;  Spalding,  Archbishop  of  Baltimore ; 
Manning,  Archbishop  of  Westminster  ;  Dechamp,  Arch 
bishop  of  Mechlin  ;  Conrad  Martin,  Bishop  of  Paderborn  ; 
Valerga  of  Jerusalem ;  Cardinals  de  Angelis  and 
Bonnechose  ;  to  say  nothing  of  Antonelli. 

An  important  member  of  the  Commission  of  Sugges 
tions  was  Guibert,  Archbishop  of  Tours.  When  con 
sulted  by  Pius  IX.  on  the  desirability  of  a  Council,  he  had 

1  Ollivier,  i.  p.  391. 


252  THE  VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

confined  himself  in  his  reply  to  practical  affairs.  There 
is  a  studious  and,  says  his  biographer,1  deliberate  silence 
on  the  theme  of  Pontifical  Infallibility.  The  theory 
was  his  personal  belief.  He  thought  that,  were  it  other 
wise,  the  Church  would  be  inadequately  furnished  for 
arresting  heresies,  since  General  Councils  are  intermittent 
and  occasional.  "  But  whether  it  is  opportune  to  make 
a  dogma  of  this  truth — that,"  he  wrote  in  1870,  "is  by 
no  means  clear  to  me."  At  the  same  time  he  added 
that  he  would  not  have  the  least  repugnance  to  sub 
scribe  to  such  a  decree.  Accordingly  Guibert,  who  was 
thoroughly  understood  in  Rome  and  highly  valued,  was 
nominated  member  of  the  Commission  of  Suggestions. 

Guibert  himself  gave  the  following  interesting 
account2  of  their  deliberations  at  the  critical  hour 
when  the 'subject  of  Infallibility  was  brought  before 
them.  The  Congregation  met  in  a  chamber  of  the 
Vatican  under  the  papal  apartments.  Cardinal  Patrizzi 
presided.  Guibert,  as  one  of  the  senior  Archbishops, 
was  placed  next  to  the  Cardinals. 

"  The  time  had  come  for  the  famous  question  of  Infalli 
bility  to  be  submitted  to  the  Congregation  for  proposals. 
Its  decision  was  anxiously  expected.  The  Pope  him 
self  had  given  orders  that  he  should  be  informed  of  our 
decision  immediately  afterwards. 

"  Cardinal  Patrizzi,  after  opening  the  subject,  pro 
ceeded  to  interrogate,  according  to  custom,  the  prelates 
of  the  least  distinguished  rank.  They  had  mostly  pre 
pared  their  reply,  and  before  voting  delivered  a  thesis 
on  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  the  Fathers,  etc. 
These  discourses  were  pronounced  or  read  in  Latin. 
When  my  turn  came,  not  being  accustomed  to  write 
much,  I  had  no  prepared  discourse,  and  being  unused 
to  talk  in  Latin,  should  have  had  great  difficulty  in 
giving  exact  expression  to  my  thoughts  in  that 

1  Follenay,  Vie  de  Cardinal  Guibert,  ii.  p.  421.  2  Ibid.  p.  423. 


xvii.]      COMMITTEE  OF  SUGGESTIONS      253 

language.  I  could,  indeed,  have  given  my  vote  in 
Latin,  but  I  desired  to  preface  it  with  some  statements 
by  way  of  explanation.  I  therefore  begged  the  pre 
siding  Cardinal  to  allow  me  to  speak  in  French,  which 
was  a  language  familiar  to  all  the  Congregation,  and 
which  would  greatly  facilitate  my  explanations.  The 
Cardinal  willingly  consented,  and,  I  may  add  that 
many  of  my  colleagues,  being  in  the  same  predicament, 
afterwards  followed  my  example.  They  seemed  to 
attach  some  importance  to  what  I  was  about  to  say. 
I  was  far  from  desiring  to  oppose  the  definition  for 
which  people  yearned.  I  was  by  no  means  in  with  the 
opposition,  but  I  had  never  manifested  enthusiasm  for 
it  as  many  others  did. 

"  I  began  with  the  profession  of  faith  in  the  Pope's 
Infallibility.  I  affirmed  that  this  belief  had  been  mine 
throughout  my  life.  I  had  been  taught  it  in  childhood, 
and  as  a  student  I  was  admitted  into  a  society  where 
this  belief  was  held  without  reserve.  I  had  taught  it 
myself  as  Superior  of  the  Seminary  of  Ajaccio.  In 
short,  I  never  had  the  least  doubt  about  the  doctrine, 
and  I  was  inclined  to  defend  it  in  every  way.  But 
the  question  before  them  now  was  whether  it  was 
opportune  for  the  Council  to  discuss  its  dogmatic 
definition.  If  this  question  had  been  raised  some  years 
before  I  should  have  asked  that  no  discussion  should  be 
held.  ...  I  hold  that  it  would  not  have  been  opportune 
to  discuss  the  subject  some  years  ago.  It  would  have 
been  even  dangerous,  for  it  would  have  needlessly 
disturbed  the  minds  of  men,  and  have  exposed  to 
challenge  an  authority  which  more  than  any  other 
should  remain  above  discussion.  But  things  are  different 
to-day.  The  subject  has  taken  possession  of  the  public 
Press,  and  violent  passions  have  been  roused  by  its  discus 
sion.  Deplorable  divisions  have  been  encouraged.  The 
faithful  are  everywhere  disturbed.  Even  Governments 
are  uneasy ;  and,  with  various  motives,  concern  them 
selves  with  this  important  matter.  Things  have  come  to 
such  a  pass  that  it  is  essential  to  bring  the  discussion 
to  an  end.  We  are  no  longer  free  to  keep  silence.  Peace 


254  THE   VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

will  only  be  restored  by  a  definition  of  that  which 
Catholics  have  believed  to  the  present  day.  We  must 
therefore  treat  the  subject ;  and,  I  would  add,  must 
decide  in  the  affirmative.  For  otherwise,  in  the  face  of 
existing  circumstances,  if  this  subject  be  not  discussed, 
serious  harm  will  be  done  to  the  faithful.  Governments 
will  not  have  the  respect  they  should  for  the  Holy  See, 
and  the  authority  of  the  Pope  will  be  depreciated. 

"  While  I  was  delivering  my  speech,"  adds  Guibert, 
in  a  most  significant  conclusion  to  this  account,  "  I  was 
watching  Cardinal  Antonelli,  who  was  seated  opposite. 
And  I  saw  him  give  indications  of  approval  each  time 
I  emphasised  my  opinions.  My  discourse  produced  a 
considerable  effect  upon  my  colleagues.  It  seemed  to 
be  new  light,  assisting  and  strengthening  those  who  were 
irresolute  on  the  proper  course  to  pursue.  Prelates 
who  spoke  after  me  did  me  the  honour  to  base  them 
selves  upon  the  reasons  I  had  propounded,  and  the 
conclusion  of  our  meeting  was  that  the  subject  should 
be  laid  before  the  Council. 

"As  soon  as  our  deliberations  were  ended,  the 
Cardinals  went  to  the  Pope  and  reported  to  him  all 
the  incidents.  They  said  that,  thanks  to  the  Archbishop 
of  Tours,  a  favourable  vote  had  been  obtained.  The 
Holy  Father  expressed  his  keen  satisfaction."1 

Such  was  Guibert's  important  share  in  promoting  the 
great  result.  If  his  health  gave  way  in  Rome  and 
compelled  him  to  leave  before  the  issue  was  determined, 
he  could  well  be  spared,  for  he  had  done  his  work.  It 
was  appropriate  that  so  influential  a  mover  in  the  Con 
gregation  of  Proposals  should  afterwards  be  selected  for 
the  Archbishopric  of  Paris,  and  the  rank  of  Cardinal. 

But  to  whom  should  the  task  be  intrusted  of 
introducing  the  great  subject  into  the  Council  itself? 
There  was  a  personage  singularly  fitted  for  this  difficult 
work.  One  of  the  most  active  spirits  in  Rome  was 

1  Follenay,  Vie  de  Cardinal  Guibert,  ii  p.  426. 


XVIL]          THE  BISHOP   OF   POITIERS         255 

Mgr.  Pie,  Bishop  of  Poitiers.  His  antecedents  were, 
from  a  curialist  standpoint,  irreproachable.  He  was, 
says  his  Ultramontane  biographer,  "very  Roman." 
Already  he  had  laboured  to  propagate  the  distinctive 
Roman  doctrines  in  five  provincial  Councils  in  France  ; 
had  taught  the  Infallibilist  opinion  twenty  years;  had 
suggested  suitable  theologians  of  the  proper  school  for 
preliminary  service  in  Rome.  The  Bishop  of  Poitiers 
had  impressed  upon  his  clergy  his  theory  of  the  relation 
of  Mary  to  the  Councils  of  the  Church.  The  Council 
of  Jerusalem,  he  informed  them,  was  "honoured  with 
her  presence,"  and  she  had  never  been  absent  from  the 
Council  Chambers  since.  He  suggested  as  a  fruitful 
subject  for  spiritual  reflection,  "  Mary  and  the  Councils." 
The  Vatican  Assembly  deserved  better  than  any  to 
be  associated  with  her  name,  for  was  it  not  opened  on 
the  Festival  of  her  Immaculate  Conception  ?  Mgr.  Pie 
had  known  perfectly  well  at  least  a  year  that  Pontifical 
Infallibility  was  bound  to  come  up  for  discussion  in  the 
Vatican  deliberations.  While  still  residing  in  his  own 
episcopal  city,  his  Roman  correspondents  had  informed 
him  that  the  preliminary  Commission  in  Rome  was 
entirely  agreed  on  the  definability  and  opportuneness 
of  the  doctrine.  And  he  himself  had  publicly  repudiated 
the  notion  that  Papal  Infallibility  depended  for  its 
completeness  upon  at  least  the  tacit  consent  of  the 
Episcopate.  That  the  Bishop's  own  silence  and  that 
of  his  colleagues  conferred  upon  Peter's  doctrinal  utter 
ances  a  value  not  obtainable  from  Christ's  promise, 
and  from  the  help  of  the  Spirit,  was  to  Mgr.  Pie  unthink 
able.  And  he  administered  a  public  rebuke  to  Bishop 
Maret,  the  learned  advocate  of  the  opposite  view,  through 
the  medium  of  a  sermon  on  the  text, "  the  servant  of  God 
must  be  teachable." l  The  superb  confidence  of  Mgr.  Pie 

1  Acta%  p.  1263. 


256  THE   VATICAN   DECISION          [CHAP. 

greatly  impressed  the  statesman  Ollivier,1  who  said  that 
there  was  nothing  like  it  on  the  other  side. 

Mgr.  Maret  replied  to  the  sermon,  and  the  preacher 
issued  a  rejoinder.2  But  the  strength  of  the  Bishop 
of  Poitiers  did  not  lie  in  argument.  He  had  no  learning 
to  measure  with  that  of  Maret.  He  was  given  to 
rhetorical  and  fervid  declamation ;  whereas  Maret  was 
measured,  historical,  deliberate.  Bishop  Pie  accord 
ingly  escaped  from  further  discussion  in  a  letter  to 
his  clergy,  in  which  he  registered  a  resolution  not  to 
allude  again  to  the  recent  work  of  a  prelate  whose 
character  he  admired,  but  whose  errors  he  lamented. 
Refutation  was,  he  maintained,  superfluous,  since  Maret 
only  repeated  his  mistakes ;  and  in  fact  answers  to 
the  work  were  appearing  daily.  At  the  same  time 
Bishop  Pie  cannot  resist  asserting  that  the  work  of 
Bishop  Maret  deserves  all  theological  censures  short 
of  formal  heresy.  To  which  he  adds  a  prediction, 
fully  justified  by  events,  that  Maret  would  abandon 
his  errors  and  submit  himself  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Church. 

Already  in  Rome  this  "  advocate  of  Roman  doctrines 
in  their  extremest  form  " 3  had  acted  consistently  with 
these  antecedents.  He  had  been  long  since  cordially 
received  by  the  Pope,  and  warmly  commended  for  his 
diocesan  utterances.  The  special  honour  had  been 
his  of  selection  to  the  important  Commission  on  Faith 
by  almost  the  highest  number  of  votes.  Already  he 
had  preached  in  Rome,  and  told  his  hearers  that  they 
had  sown  much  and  reaped  little,  since  two  or  three 
false  lights  had  misguided  men  and  disturbed  the  vision 
even  of  the  wise.  Nevertheless  he  bade  them  be  of  good 
courage.  For  two  or  three  new  definitions  of  principle 

1  Ollivier,  i.  p.  411. 
2  Acta,  p.  1277.  3  Ollivier,  i.  p.  415. 


xvii.]          THE   BISHOP  OF   POITIERS        257 

would  make  their  children  more  powerful  for  good  than 
they  themselves  had  ever  been. 

It   is   true  that   the  diocese   of  Poitiers  was  by  no 
means   free   from   tendencies   of  the    opposite    school. 
The  Bishop  received  from  Catholics  of  his  own  flock 
letters    filled    with    objections    against    these    Roman 
doctrines   with  which   for   twenty   years   he  had  inde- 
fatigably  laboured   to   feed  them.     Accordingly,  for   a 
while,   he   steered    a    diplomatic   course    between    the 
opposing  extremes.     When   the   majority   presented  a 
petition,  asking    the  Pope    to  introduce  forthwith  the 
question  of   Pontifical    Infallibility   into  the   Council's 
discussions,  Mgr.  Pie  was  not  to  be  found  among  the 
petitioners.     There   were   reasons   for   this   precaution. 
The  immediate  introduction  of  the  theme  would  violate 
the  logical  development  of  thought.     For  certainly  the 
Church  itself  should  be  considered  before  the  subject 
of  the  Pope.     While,  therefore,  the  Bishop  of  Poitiers 
was   widely   remote   from   sympathy   with    those   who 
desired    the    doctrine's   indefinite    postponement    and 
ultimate   suppression,   he   fully   sympathised   with   the 
desire  to    set   the   doctrine    in   its   logical   place.     He 
thought   it  would  be   stronger   there  than   it   possibly 
could  be  if  torn  out  of  its  context,  and  arbitrarily  and 
disconnectedly  introduced.     Hence  he  did  not  explicitly 
associate  himself  at  first  with  this  urgency  movement 
of  the  majority.     He  shared  their  belief  but  not  their 
impatience. 

However,  tactful  and  sagacious  as  ever,  and  keenly 
alive  to  the  direction  in  which  the  stream  of  popularity 
flowed  with  increasing  volume,  Mgr.  Pie  was  much  too 
prudent  to  oppose  a  lengthy  reluctance  to  the  wishes 
of  his  intimate  partisans.  His  conversion  to  the  view, 
that  so  urgent  a  matter  required  immediate  treatment, 
was  shortly  announced.  He  adopted  the  vulgar  reproach 

R 


258  THE   VATICAN    DECISION  [CHAP. 

against  the  minority :  "  what  they  labelled  inopportune 
they  have  rendered  inevitable."  He  identified  himself 
with  the  irritating  assertion  that  the  responsibility  for 
the  definition  was  due  to  its  opponents.  Of  that,  he 
said,  he  had  not  the  slightest  doubt.  He  was  now  to 
influence  the  Council  itself.  To  whom  could  the  task  of 
introducing  the  pontifical  claims  into  the  Council  be 
better  intrusted  than  to  him  ?  An  Infallibilist  who  had 
not  signed  the  petition  for  Infallibility  would  be  more 
calculated  to  disarm  opposition.  The  Bishop's  friends 
in  France  were  enchanted.  An  episcopal  colleague  just 
returning  from  Lourdes  wrote  to  him  enthusiastically 
in  terms  redolent  of  the  ardent  piety  of  that  place : 
"  The  Pope  has  said  to  Mary,  You  are  immaculate. 
And  now  Mary  answers  the  Pope,  And  you  are 
infallible." 

The  Bishop  of  Poitiers  set  about  his  speech.  He 
walked  with  Pius  IX.  himself  in  the  gardens  of  the 
Vatican.  He  spent  much  time  in  serious  discussion 
with  the  Jesuit  theologians  Schrader  and  Franzelin. 
Such  were  the  influences  at  work  upon  his  imagination. 
It  was  a  delicate  task,  as  his  Ultramontane  biographer 
justly  observes,  to  introduce  such  a  subject  before  an 
Assembly  so  divided.  To  do  it  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  opposing  extremes  was  of  course  impossible.  The 
speech  of  an  hour  and  five  minutes,  in  which  this  great 
theory  was  launched  upon  the  Council,  received  the 
sharpest  criticism  of  learned  Germany,  and  the  warmest 
congratulations  of  the  majority  and  the  presiding 
Cardinals.  On  the  following  day  the  Pope  himself 
alighted  from  his  carnage  to  meet  the  orator,  and 
expressed  the  liveliest  satisfaction.  "  Bene  scripsisti  de 
me"  said  Pius  IX. — an  allusion,  observes  the  biographer, 
to  the  words  which  our  Lord  was  reported  to  have 
spoken  to  St  Thomas  Aquinas,  in  commendation  of 


xvn.]       THE   ARCHBISHOP  OF  PARIS      259 

his  theological  labours.      In  course  of  time  the  orator 
was  raised  to  the  Cardinalate. 

Nothing  can  better  reveal  the  effect  of  this  announce 
ment  on  the  minority  than  the  terms  in  which  the 
Archbishop  of  Paris  denounced  it  in  a  letter  to 
Cardinal  Antonelli,1  the  Papal  Secretary  of  State. 

"  This  discussion  of  Papal  Infallibility  before  all  the 
other  questions  which  must  necessarily  precede  it,  this 
reversal  of  the  proper  and  regular  procedure  of  the 
Council,  this  impulsive  haste  in  a  subject  of  the  utmost 
delicacy,  which  by  its  very  nature  required  deliberation 
and  calm — all  this,"  said  the  Archbishop,  "  was  not  only 
illogical,  absurd,  incredible,  but  it  plainly  betrayed 
before  the  world  a  resolve  to  coerce  the  Council,  and 
was,  to  describe  it  correctly,  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  freedom  of  the  Bishops.  To  persist  in  this  design 
would  be  nothing  less  than  a  scandal  before  the  whole 
world.  Those  who  advocate  such  excesses  are  plainly 
blind  to  considerations  of  prudence.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  a  justice  and  public  good  faith  which  cannot  be 
wounded  with  impunity. 

"  I  say  from  the  depth  of  inner  conviction,"  exclaimed 
the  Archbishop,2  that  if  decrees  are  passed  by  such 
methods  as  these,  occasion  will  be  given  for  the  gravest 
suspicions  as  to  the  validity  and  freedom  of  the  Vatican 

r*  *i 

Council. 

"  That  decrees  can  be  passed  this  way  is  indisputable," 
he  added.  "  You  can  do  anything  by  force  of  numbers 
against  reason  and  against  right.  But  there  is  the 
sequel  to  be  considered.  It  is  then  that  troubles  will 
arise  for  yourselves  and  for  the  Church." 

Now  the  writer  of  this  fervid  denunciation  was  con 
spicuous  for  acuteness,  tact,  reserve,  discretion,  self- 
control.  What  it  meant  for  such  a  nature  to  speak 
this  way  may  be  imagined.  Nothing  can  better  show 

1  Quirinus,  p.  854.  3  Ibid.  p.  856. 


260  THE   VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

the  intense  strain  on  the  feelings  of  the  minority 
than  the  fire  and  passion  in  this  utterance  of  one 
of  the  coldest  of  their  number. 

The  Archbishop's  warning  produced  no  practical 
effect. 

A  French  pamphlet,1  entitled  "  The  Freedom  of  the 
Council  and  Infallibility,"  said  to  be  the  work  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Paris,  gives  an  extremely  powerful 
description  of  the  situation  in  Rome,  from  the  minority 
standpoint,  on  the  1st  of  June.  Only  fifty  copies  were 
printed,  and  it  was  intended  exclusively  for  circulation 
among  the  Cardinals. 

"Wide-spread  complaints  exist,"  says  the  writer, 
"  that  the  Council  is  not  free.  This  is  momentous,  for 
it  affects  its  ecumenicity.  Some  indeed  assure  us  that 
all  is  well  since  the  Pope  is  free.  This  is  not  the 
Catholic  conviction,  and  will  only  satisfy  one  side. 
It  is  useless  to  bid  us  observe  a  respectful  silence. 
The  integrity  of  history  must  be  secured  against  party 
spirit.  Moreover  we  have  now  reached  the  second 
period  of  the  Council's  activities. 

"  From  the  very  beginning  Papal  Infallibility  has  been 
the  main  affair.  To-day  it  has  become  the  only  interest. 
The  time  for  concealment  is  past.  The  Council  has 
/  only  been  assembled  for  this  end.  And  now  the  Pope 
has  postponed  all  other  considerations  and  proceeds 
to  throw  this  doctrine  suddenly  and  irregularly  into 
their  midst.  This  is  an  amazing  act  of  sovereign 
authority,  a  sort  of  coup  detat.  Nevertheless,  it  has 
been  throughout  the  aim,  although  the  secret  aim,  of 
the  Assembly  at  the  Vatican.  The  majority  declares 
the  doctrine  to  be  urgently  necessary.  But  why  this 
urgency  ?  A  question  which  without  peril  to  the  Church 
has  waited  eighteen  hundred  years  might  possibly  still 
afford  to  wait,  at  least  for  months.  Precipitation, 

1  Friedrich,  Documenta. 


xvii.]     THE   ARCHBISHOP  OF   PARIS        261 

urgency,  are  unbecoming  in  a  problem  demanding  above 
all  things  the  calm  gravity,  deliberateness,  freedom, 
which  alone  befit  representatives  of  an  eternal  Church. 
The  probability  of  an  interruption  of  the  Council  before 
anything  is  decreed  is  a  miserable  subterfuge.  Is  it  really 
believed  that  the  majority  is  accidental  and  could  not 
be  counted  upon  again  ? 

"  What  appears  to  us  most  serious  in  this  coup  d'etat 
is  not  so  much  the  disordering  of  the  Council's  regular 
work,  as  the  proof  thereby  displayed  of  an  arbitrary 
and  absolute  will,  determined  to  override  everything 
in  order  to  secure  an  end  long  since  designed  although 
long  concealed. 

"  Certainly  those  who  urge  the  Holy  Father  to  such 
extremes  take  upon  themselves  a  most  tremendous 
responsibility.  Considering  the  circumstances  (especially 
the  doubts  already  raised  as  to  the  Council's  freedom), 
under  which  they  have  demanded  and  secured  an 
exercise  of  supreme  authority,  placing  so  many  vener 
able  Bishops  in  the  dilemma  of  a  struggle  with  the 
Pope  or  with  their  own  consciences,  we  cannot  refrain 
from  the  enquiry,  What  future  do  they  expect  will 
await  this  assembly  of  the  Vatican  ? 

"  The  Council  has  now  resumed  its  labours  under  new 
Regulations.  Undoubtedly  these  will  facilitate  rapidity. 
But  the  aim  of  a  Council  is  not  rapidity,  but  truth.  If 
the  speed  is  increased,  it  is  at  the  price  of  the  freedom 
of  the  Bishops ;  at  the  price  of  real  deliberation  ;  of  the 
dignity  and  security  of  the  Church.  The  new  Regula 
tions  on  Procedure  had  provoked  a  protest  from  one 
hundred  Bishops  of  the  minority :  they  feel  them 
selves  burdened  by  intolerable  restrictions.  They  find 
themselves  completely  under  the  control  of  the 
Presidents,  of  the  Commissions,  of  the  majority.  And 
behind  all  these  there  is  the  perpetual  intervention  of 
the  Pope  himself.  The  Presidents  control  absolutely 
the  order  of  the  day,  the  length  of  the  Sessions,  the 
regularity  of  meetings,  the  intervals  for  the  study  of 
documents.  The  Council,  under  such  dominion,  has 
no  life  of  its  own,  and  no  power  of  initiative.  It  has 


262  THE   VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

no  liberty.  Is  there,"  asks  the  writer,  "  any  deliberative 
assembly  in  Europe  or  America  similarly  restricted? 
And  yet  the  necessity  of  freedom  is  more  imperative 
here  than  in  any  assembly  in  the  world,  considering 
the  eternal  interests  here  involved. 

"The  minority  feel  themselves  still  more  crippled 
by  the  power  of  numbers.  There  exists  a  majority 
and  a  minority ;  unequal  in  numerical  strength,  but 
far  more  equal  considering  the  Churches  which  they 
represent.  The  composition  of  this  majority  raises 
serious  thoughts.  The  Council  includes,  besides  diocesan 
Bishops,  whose  right  alone  is  indisputable,  Bishops  with 
>;  no  diocese ;  Vicars  Apostolic,  dependent  on  Rome  and 
removable  at  will ;  Cardinals  who  are  not  Bishops  and 
some  not  even  priests ;  superiors  of  religious  Orders." 
According  to  the  author,  the  proportion  whose  right  of 
membership  was  uncertain  amounted  to  195.  "  Moreover 
the  preponderance  of  Italian  influence  is  shown  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  represented  by  276  Bishops,  while  all  the 
rest  of  Europe  has  only  265.  A  considerable  proportion 
of  Bishops  are  being  maintained  by  the  Pope,  which 
increases  the  difficulties  of  real  independence. 

"  If  it  be  said  that  decision  by  majorities  is  the  method 
of  all  deliberative  assemblies,  the  answer  is,  that  this  is 
not  true  of  a  Universal  Council  of  the  Church  ;  least  of 
all  can  it  be  permissible  with  an  Assembly  so  con 
stituted  as  that  of  the  Vatican.  Creation  of  dogmas 
by  such  a  method  is  impossible.  It  has  never  been 
done  in  the  Church.  And,  accordingly,  the  protest  of 
a  hundred  Bishops  declares  that  moral  unanimity  alone 
can  determine  dogmatic  questions.  So  serious  they 
declare  is  this  matter  that  unless  their  protest  against 
the  New  Regulations  be  attended  to,  and  that  without 
delay,  their  consciences  will  be  burdened  with  intoler 
able  difficulties.  A  hundred  Bishops  say  this.  And 
they  have  secured  no  reply  whatever.  The  perplexities 
resulting  from  this  treatment  may  be  well  imagined. 
Certainly  the  function  of  an  Episcopal  minority  in  a 
Council  is  no  sinecure.  Some  desired  at  once  to  with 
draw  altogether.  Others,  and  these  the  more  numerous, 


xvii.]      THE   ARCHBISHOP  OF  PARIS        263 

were  reluctant  to  take  this  final  step.     Which  of  the 
two  was  the  wiser  course  the  future  will  show." 

The  author  complains  still  further  of  pressure  exerted 
from  without ;  of  ordinary  priests  encouraged  by  Roman 
influences  to  make  declarations  in  favour  of  Infallibility 
against  their  Bishops — a  sort  of  novel  Presbyterianism 
in  which  the  Bishop's  testimony  to  the  faith  is  super 
seded  by  a  section  of  his  clergy.  More  serious  still  is 
the  personal  intervention  of  the  Pope.  A  powerful 
moral  pressure  is  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Bishops 
by  Pius  IX.  Bellarmine  wrote  a  courageous  letter  to 
Clement  VIII.,  counselling  him  not  to  influence  the 
assembled  theologians  with  the  weight  of  his  personal 
opinions,  nor  to  bestow  his  favours  and  coveted  dis 
tinctions  exclusively  upon  those  who  thought  as  he 
did,  but  to  leave  all  men  in  these  serious  discussions  to 
the  unimpeded  expression  of  his  own  belief.  Certainly 
Pius  IX.  had  met  with  other  advisers,  and  Bellarmine 
has  no  equivalent  in  the  Vatican  of  to-day.  Semi 
official  papers  ascribed  to  the  Pope  a  sentiment  of 
dignified  reserve  on  the  question  of  his  Infallibility. 
But,  as  a  fact,  every  movement  in  that  direction 
has  received  papal  blessings  and  encouragement.  An 
astonishing  number  of  briefs  has  been  issued  from  the 
secretariat  of  latin  letters.  Each  tract  in  favour  of 
Infallibility  is  commended.  Thus  the  subject  before 
the  Council  is  prejudged,  and  the  minority  bishops 
themselves  indirectly  attacked. 

The  author's  conclusion  is  that  the  character  of  the 
Council  is  seriously  compromised,  and  its  freedom  more 
than  questionable. 

The  general  discussion  x  of  Infallibility  began  on  the 
1 3th  of  May,  and  continued  to  the  3rd  of  June.  No 

1  Acta  ;  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  279. 


264         THE  VATICAN   DECISION  [CHAP. 

less  than  sixty-four  Bishops  desired  to  speak  upon  it. 
Their  names  are  known,  but  their  speeches,  with  few 
exceptions,  are  only  known  in  fragments.  They  all 
exist  of  course  in  the  shorthand  reports  stored  in  the 
Vatican  archives,  but  they  have  not  yet  appeared. 
This  remains  for  a  future  historian.  Meanwhile,  we 
know  fairly  well  what  Manning  said,  and  we  have  in 
full  the  speech  of  the  Archbishop  of  Paris. 

The  Archbishop  of  Paris  discussed  three  points : 
the  introduction,  the  contents,  and  the  results  of  this 
proposed  decree.  Two  facts  might  show  whether  its 
introduction  into  the  Council  was  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  and  dignity  of  such  an  Assembly. 

One  fact  was,  that  while  Papal  Infallibility  was 
obviously  the  real  object  for  which  the  Vatican  Council 
was  assembled  (as  indeed  the  creation  of  a  new  dogma  is 
the  most  momentous  act  a  Council  can  perform),  never 
theless  this  momentous  subject  was  never  mentioned 
in  the  official  documents.  And  this  omission  was 
natural.  For  the  Catholic  world  had  no  desire  for  a 
settlement  of  the  question ;  nor  was  there  any  real 
ground  for  meddling  with  what  had  hitherto  always 
been  a  subject  of  free  enquiry  among  theologians. 

The  second  fact  was  the  introduction  of  the  subject 
into  the  Council  completely  out  of  its  logical  and 
natural  order.  It  was  not  logical  to  begin  the  doctrine 
on  the  Church  with  a  definition  on  the  Papacy ;  for  the 
Infallibility  of  the  Church  must  clearly  be  considered 
prior  to  that  of  the  Pope. 

So  far  as  to  its  introduction.  As  to  its  subject 
matter:  the  substance  of  the  formula  before  the 
Council  contained  ambiguous  expressions,  and  was  full 
of  difficulty.  Under  what  conditions  is  this  Infallibility 
supposed  to  be  exercised?  By  what  external  signs 
can  we  rest  assured  that  the  Pope  is  discharging  the 


xvii.]          THE  ARCHBISHOP  OF  PARIS     265 

office  of  supreme  teacher  of  Christendom  ?  Is  the 
consent  of  the  Episcopate  required  or  not?  If  it  is, 
then  men  are  fighting  a  shadow,  for  this  is  the  doctrine 
universally  received ;  if  it  is  not  required,  then  they  are 
introducing  an  unheard-of  and  intolerable  innovation. 
But  when  a  formula  free  from  ambiguities  has  been 
discovered,  then  two  conditions  must  be  fulfilled : 
First,  the  formula,  when  discovered,  must  be  proved 
by  solid  arguments  from  Scripture,  from  the  Fathers, 
from  the  Councils.  It  must  be  shown  that  no  important 
historic  incidents  conflict  with  it,  that  no  papal  act 
refutes  it.  The  Archbishop  referred  to  the  Council  of 
Constance  as  an  example  in  which  the  statement  that 
"  every  lawfully  convoked  Ecumenical  Council  represent 
ing  the  Church  derives  its  authority  immediately  from 
Christ,  and  every  one,  the  Pope  included,  is  subject  to 
it  in  matters  of  faith,"  was  unanimously  decreed.  The 
Italian  School,  of  course,  would  deny  the  ecumenical 
character  of  this  decree.  "  That,"  says  the  Archbishop 
of  Paris,  "  I  do  not  admit."  Moreover,  in  any  case  it 
would  show  the  common  opinion  of  the  Bishops.  All 
these  questions,  urged  Darboy,  would  have  to  be  con 
sidered  and  weighed.  Until  the  necessary  proofs  are 
forthcoming  nothing  can  rightfully  be  done.  There  is 
no  peril  in  delay.  But  to  impose  irrevocably  on  the 
consciences  of  the  faithful  a  decree  with  precipitation, 
and  without  absolute  certainty,  would  be  the  gravest 
peril  that  can  be  conceived. 

As  to  the  practical  results  of  such  a  decree  the  Arch 
bishop  observed  that  Papal  Infallibility  was  offered  as 
a  means  for  strengthening  authority  and  unity  in  the 
Church.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  ideal 
of  authority  in  Christendom  is  not  that  which  our 
imagination  or  our  reason  represents  as  most  desirable ; 
but  that  which  Christ  has  established  and  our  fathers 


266  THE  VATICAN  DECISION  [CHAP. 

maintained  to  this  day.  It  is  not  our  function  to 
reconstruct  the  Church  after  our  taste,  or  to  alter  the 
conditions  of  divine  ordaining.  Now  the  Church  has 
never  been  without  its  essential  elements.  But  it  has 
never  had  a  definition  of  Papal  Infallibility.  Such 
definition  cannot  therefore  be  essential.  Nor  have 
men  the  right  to  argue  that  the  Church's  unity  would 
be  firmer  if  authority  were  stronger.  An  institution 
may  be  ruined  by  over-pressure.  Excessive  concentra 
tion  may  paralyse  its  functions  rather  than  perfect  them. 

Then,  again,  the  remedy  for  the  evils  of  the  world 
is  not  to  be  found  in  Papal  Infallibility.  This  doctrine 
will  not  draw  to  the  Church  the  alienated  majority ; 
nor  give  the  Church  its  rightful  place  of  influence 
among  the  nations.  The  world  is  sick  and  perishing, 
not  for  want  of  knowing  the  truth,  but  for  want  of 
love  for  it.  If  it  reject  the  truth  now  when  presented 
by  the  collective  testimony  of  the  Church,  it  will  not 
any  the  more  accept  it  because  affirmed  by  one 
infallible  voice.  And  what  is  the  value  of  a  proclama 
tion  if  it  is  not  received  ?  of  an  anathema  where  the 
formulating  authority  is  not  acknowledged? 

The  Archbishop  evidently  spoke  with  constraint. 
His  measured,  diplomatic  utterances  suggest  the  firm 
ness  and  caution  of  one  desirous  not  unnecessarily  to 
offend  yet  resolute  to  speak  his  mind.  He  told  the 
Council  that  he  had  delivered  his  conscience,  so  far 
as  was  allowed  him  ;  that  if  he  were  to  say  all  he 
would  outrun  the  limits  of  discretion.  He  concluded 
by  proposing,  first,  to  postpone  the  scheme  as  having 
been  introduced  in  a  manner  unworthy  of  the  Council ; 
secondly,  to  reconsider  more  carefully  the  nature 
and  limits  of  Infallibility ;  and,  finally,  to  set  aside 
the  subject  altogether  as  fraught  with  dangerous  results 
to  Christendom. 


xvii.J     THE   ARCHBISHOP   OF   PARIS        267 

The  Congregations  were  occupied  with  daily  lengthy 
speeches  for  and  against  the  doctrine  of  Infallibility 
from  1 3th  May  to  3rd  June.  On  3rd  June  the  Presidents 
produced  a  petition  signed  by  many  Bishops,  request 
ing  that  the  debate  might  be  closed.  The  Council  was 
accordingly  invited  to  express  its  opinion,  and  the  large 
majority  decided  that  the  time  for  closure  was  come. 
Thus  again  the  minority  were  defeated. 

Little  more  remained  to  be  done.  The  special  dis 
cussion  followed.  But  the  matter  was  approaching  its 
close.  The  minority  grew  more  spiritless  and  anxious 
for  self-protection.  The  intense  heat  of  the  Roman 
summer  told  fearfully  on  the  health  of  Bishops 
accustomed  to  northern  climes.  Appeals  to  the  Pope 
for  adjournment  until  autumn  were  rejected.  The 
futility  of  protracted  discussion  became  convincingly 
clear  to  the  minority  no  less  than  to  the  majority.1 
A  desperate  attempt  was  made  by  some  French  Bishops 
(Dupanloup  and  the  Archbishop  of  Paris)  to  induce 
the  Emperor  Napoleon  to  request  the  Pope,  in  the 
name  of  humanity  and  reason,  to  prorogue  the  Council 
until  October.  But  before  the  reply  could  arrive  the 
minority  abandoned  the  struggle.2 

Many  Bishops  resigned  their  turn  to  speak.  A 
movement  for  closure  arose,  instigated  chiefly  by 
Manning :  at  first  resisted,  the  minority  gradually 
acquiesced. 

Ultimately,  amid  general  approval,  the  presiding 
Cardinal  declared  the  discussion  closed.  On  the  I3th 
of  July  the  proposition  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  put 
to  the  vote.3  The  President  announced  that  60 1  Fathers 
had  voted.  Of  these  451  were  in  favour,  88  against, 
and  62  favourable  conditionally.4 

1  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  329.  2  Acta,  p.  756. 

3  Actat  p.  758.  *  Ibid,  p.  760. 


268  THE   VATICAN    DECISION  [CHAP. 

The  Legates  further  announced  that  the  conditional 
votes  would  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  reported 
upon  in  the  next  Congregation.  Ninety-one  Bishops 
also  abstained  from  voting,  although  in  Rome  at  the 
time.1  When  the  members  re-assembled  on  Saturday, 
1 6th  July,  a  report  was  made  on  the  conditional 
votes  and  the  amendments ;  but  so  far  from  anything 
being  done  to  conciliate  the  minority,  the  wording  of 
the  decree  was  made  somewhat  more  uncompromising 
than  before.  To  the  definition  voted  on  the  I3th, 
that  the  decrees  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  were  irreform- 
able  of  themselves,  it  was  now  added  "and  not  by 
consent  of  the  Church,"  thus  emphasising  still  more 
strongly  that  the  dogmatic  authority  of  the  Papacy 
was  independent  of  the  entire  Episcopate.2  After  this 
stupendous  achievement  the  Presidents  informed  the 
Bishops  that,  although  the  Council  was  not  prorogued, 
a  general  permission  was  granted  them  to  return  to 
their  dioceses  until  nth  November  (St  Martin's  Day).8 

The  final  Public  Session  at  which  the  Pope  proposed 
to  convert  the  formula  into  dogma  of  faith  was  fixed 
for  Monday,  i8th  July.  There  was  for  the  minority 
certainly  no  time  to  lose.  They  made  one  last 
attempt.4  On  the  Saturday  evening  a  deputation  of  the 
opposition,  including  two  Cardinals  and  the  Archbishops 
of  Paris  and  Milan,  went  to  the  Vatican  and  sought 
an  audience  with  the  Pope.  After  waiting  an  hour, 
they  were  admitted  at  nine  o'clock.5  The  Archbishop 
of  Paris  was  their  representative.  In  his  own  name, 
and  in  that  of  his  associates,  he  declared  his  sub 
mission  to  the  doctrine  of  Infallibility,  but  requested 
the  insertion  of  the  phrase,  "relying  on  the  testimony 
of  the  Churches."  This  phrase  would  have  acknow- 

1  Quirinus,  p.  778.  *  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  337. 

8  Acta,  4  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  341.  6  Quirinus,  p.  800. 


XVIL]    MINORITY  INTERVIEW  THE  POPE  269 

ledged  that  the  witness  of  the  Church  and  of  the 
Episcopate  was  essential  to  any  doctrine  which  claimed 
to  be  part  of  the  Catholic  faith.1  It  would  have  made 
the  dogma  much  less  difficult  to  many  members  of  the 
Roman  Church.  It  would  have  relieved  the  strange 
and  incredible  isolation  in  which  the  new  formula  had 
placed  the  Pope  —  as  apart  from,  independent  of,  the 
universal  consciousness  of  Christendom.  It  would  have 
suggested  that  the  Pope  represented  and  voiced  the 
collective  conviction  of  the  Church,  on  whose  testimony 
he  was  relying.  But  this  was  not  the  Ultramontane 
idea.  And  there  is  no  occasion  for  surprise  if  Pius  IX. 
rejected  it.  One  more  appeal  was  made  to  him. 
Ketteler,2  Bishop  of  Maintz,  threw  himself  on  his  knees 
before  the  Pope,  and  with  his  eyes  full  of  tears  implored 
Pius  to  make  some  concession  which  would  restore 
peace  to  the  Church  and  to  the  Episcopate.  It  is 
a  striking  scene.  Two  conceptions  of  the  Church 
are  embodied  in  these  two  men :  in  Pius,  the 
modern  Ultramontane  conception  of  absolute  authority 
centralised  and  condensed  in  one  individual ;  in  his 
suppliant,  the  ancient  Cyprianic  conception  of  authority 
residing  in  the  Collective  Episcopate.  In  the  attitude 
of  the  two  men,  the  historian  may  see  the  old  vainly 
pleading  with  the  new  for  permission  to  exist ;  lifelong 
believers  reduced  to  self-contradiction  as  the  price  of 
permission  to  remain.  It  was  this  scene  which  pro 
voked  a  Roman  contemporary 3  to  say  : — 

"  Pius  is  firm  and  immovable,  smooth  and  hard  as 
marble,  infinitely  self-satisfied,  merciless  and  ignorant, 
without  any  understanding  of  the  mental  conditions 
and  needs  of  mankind,  without  any  notion  of  the 

1  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  341. 

2  Ibid.  ii.  p.  342;  Quirinus,  p.  801. 
*  Quirinus,  p.  802. 


270  THE   VATICAN   DECISION         [CHAP. 

character  of   foreign    nations,  but  as    credulous   as   a 
nun." 

Frustrated  in  that  last  appeal,  the  deputation  returned 
to  their  party.  A  meeting  was  held  very  late  on  the 
Saturday  night.1  What  should  the  minority  do  ?  The 
bolder  spirits  proposed  that  they  should  attend  the 
Public  Session,  and  openly  repeat  their  rejection  of 
the  doctrine.  But  the  bolder  spirits  were  few.  Many 
shrank  from  such  resolute  action.  They  held  it  incon 
sistent  with  respect  for  the  Pope  to  pronounce  a  public 
protest  in  his  presence  at  the  final  Session  when  the 
doctrine  would  be  proclaimed.  They  had  misgivings 
as  to  the  number  who  had  the  courage  for  such  a  stand. 
Diminishing  numbers  added  point  to  this  misgiving. 
Many  Bishops  had  already  left  the  city,  others  were 
going.  Was  it  prudent  to  appear  in  protest  shorn  of 
their  real  numerical  strength  ?  Moreover,  there  were 
personal  anxieties  and  fears.  What  if  in  the  Public 
Session  their  protest  was  over-ruled  ?  The  determina 
tion  of  the  majority  to  decree  the  dogma  at  any  cost 
was  now  beyond  dispute.  Illusion  was  impossible.  The 
formidable  anathema  attached  to  the  decree  might  in 
another  forty-eight  hours  apply  to  themselves.  They 
were  very  uneasy  in  the  papal  precincts.  They  would 
infinitely  prefer  to  take  refuge  in  the  safety  of  their 
own  cathedral  cities,  far  away  from  the  entanglements, 
oppressive  atmosphere,  moral  as  well  as  physical,  in 
Rome.  Consequently  caution  prevailed.  They  com 
posed  a  letter  to  the  Pope,  the  last  of  their  many 
futile  protestations,  couched  in  terms  of  deference,  but 
registering  their  continued  allegiance  to  their  ancient 
principles.  And  by  Sunday  evening  most  of  the  seventy 
Bishops,  representatives  of  some  of  the  most  illustrious 

1  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  343. 


xvii.]  THE   LAST   PROTEST  271 

Sees  in  Christendom,  had  left  the  city,  and  hastened 
away  beyond  the  territorial  dominions  of  Rome. 

The  last  letter  of  the  defeated  minority  called  the 
Pope's  attention  to  the  number  of  disapproving  prelates.1 
To  the  eighty-eight  who  voted  in  the  negative  must  be 
added  the  sixty-two  others  who  expressed  themselves 
dissatisfied  ;  and,  beyond  these,  another  seventy  who 
absented  themselves,  although  present  in  Rome,  and 
others  still  who  had  already  left  the  city.  The  large 
element  of  disapproval  would  be  obvious  to  the  Pope,  and 
also  to  the  world.  Since  the  hour  when  they  recorded 
their  vote  against  the  doctrine,  nothing  had  happened  to 
change  their  opinion :  on  the  contrary,  much  to  strengthen 
it.  Accordingly  they  now  renew  and  endorse  their 
declaration.  Under  these  circumstances  they  have 
resolved  to  absent  themselves  from  the  Public  Session  of 
the  1 8th;  their  reverence  for  the  Holy  See  not  permitting 
them  to  proceed  to  an  open  refusal  of  a  doctrine  by 
which  the  Pope  was  personally  affected.  They  would 
therefore  leave  the  city  and  return  to  their  dioceses 
with  expressions  of  unaltered  faith  and  obedience. 

Among  the  signatures  to  this  letter  are  the  names  of 
Cardinal  Schwarzenberg ;  Darboy,  Archbishop  of  Paris  ; 
Scherr,  Archbishop  of  Munich  ;  Kenrick,  Archbishop  of 
St  Louis ;  Strossmayer,  Bishop  of  Sirmium ;  Bishop 
Maret.  Bishop  Clifford  of  Clifton,  Bishop  Dupanloup, 
Bishop  Hefele.2 

This  final  letter  of  disapproval,  which  sixty  of  the 
Bishops  signed,  was  of  course  technically  valueless. 
All  speeches,  protests,  and  letters  count  for  nothing 
compared  with  the  actual  formal  decision.  If  any 
protest  were  to  have  validity,  it  must  be  made  pre 
cisely  where  the  minority  had  not  the  courage  to  make 
it — in  the  Council  at  the  final  Session  ;  to  frustrate  the 

1  A  eta,  p.  994.  a  Ibid.  p.  995. 


272  THE   VATICAN   DECISION          [CHAP. 

impending  decree.  Yet,  if  it  is  strictly  true  that  the 
dogma  was  passed  with  practical  unanimity  of  all 
present,  on  the  value  of  that  unanimity  opinions  will 
legitimately  differ. 

The  conduct  of  the  minority  has  been  not  unnaturally 
severely  criticised.  They  grew  feeble,  says  Ollivier,1  the 
head  of  the  French  ministry,  just  in  proportion  as 
actions  ought  to  have  taken  the  place  of  words.  Their 
arguments  in  their  last  consultation  were  weakness 
itself.  Not  to  renew  their  protest  in  the  Public  Session 
was  virtually  to  cancel  the  protest  already  made.  It 
insured  for  the  decree  just  that  unanimity  which  its 
advocates  desired,  and  which  its  opponents  knew  that 
it  did  not  possess.  It  was  a  confession  that  they  dared 
not  utter  Yes  or  No.2 

Before  Dupanloup  left  the  city  he  sent  the  Pope  a 
letter3  suggesting  one  last  expedient  for  averting  the 
evils  which  a  decree  of  Infallibility  would  involve.  Let 
the  Pope  personally  decline  to  confirm  the  decree. 
Let  him  say  in  the  Public  Session  that  he  thankfully 
recognises  the  remarkable  tribute  to  the  prerogatives  of 
his  See,  in  the  votes  of  so  numerous  an  assembly  of 
Bishops  ;  nevertheless,  considering  the  circumstances, 
and  after  mature  reflection,  he  believes  it  more  in  accord 
ance  with  apostolic  wisdom  and  prudence  to  withhold 
his  definite  approval  until  a  less  disturbed  and  more 
propitious  time.  Dupanloup  assured  the  Pope  that 
this  manoeuvre  would  solve  the  problem,  release  men 
unexpectedly  at  the  last  moment  from  incalculable  mis 
fortunes,  astonish  the  world,  and  win  universal  reverence 
and  admiration.  This  singular  epistle  terminated  with 
a  promise  to  preserve  inviolable  silence  on  the  advice 
which  he  ventured  to  give. 

The  night  passed.     Early   on   the   morning   of  the 

1  Ollivier,  ii.  p.  341.  3  Ibid.  p.  343.  8  Ada,  p.  993. 


xvii.]  DUPANLOUP'S   RETURN  273 

eventful  i8th  of  July,  Dupanloup's  reflections  were 
interrupted  by  a  sudden  exclamation  from  his  travelling 
companion,  Archbishop  Haynald,  who  sat  at  the 
opposite  corner  of  the  carriage.  "  Monseigneur,"  said 
Haynald,  "  we  have  made  a  great  mistake."  Dupanloup 
had  no  heart  for  further  discussion.  He  made  a  sign 
that  he  wished  to  say  his  Office.  Archbishop  Haynald 
was  right.  If,  as  Dupanloup  told  the  clergy,  Bishops 
united  in  council  with  the  Pope  "decide  questions  as 
witnesses  of  the  faith  of  their  Churches,  as  judges  by 
divine  right " l  it  would  seem  to  be  not  only  their  right, 
but  their  very  awful  duty  and  inalienable  responsi 
bility  to  allow  no  sentiment  of  respect  for  the  office  of 
another  to  silence  their  convictions  and  frustrate  their 
decisions.  Thus  it  is  true  that  the  minority  melted 
away,  and  that  the  ultimate  proclamation  was  made 
with  practical  unanimity  ;  but  this  was  due  to  a  regard 
for  sentiment  which  was,  under  the  circumstances, 
wholly  out  of  place.  The  Bishop  who  told  his  diocese 
that  the  definition  of  such  prerogatives  demanded  other 
considerations  than  sentiment  or  filial  piety,  could  not 
consistently  withdraw  his  testimony  to  the  faith  of  the 
Church  just  in  the  most  critical  moment  that  ever 
awaited  him. 

Meanwhile  in  Rome  the  final  declaration  was  made. 
In  the  presence  of  his  faithful  majority,  in  the  midst  of 
one  of  the  fiercest  storms  ever  known  to  break  across  the 
city,  accompanied  by  thunder  and  lightning,  while  rain 
poured  in  through  the  broken  glass  of  the  roof  close  to 
the  spot  where  the  Pope  was  standing,  Pius  IX.  read 
in  the  darkness,  by  the  aid  of  a  candle,  the  momentous 
affirmation  of  his  own  Infallibility.  Variously  ex 
plained  by  friend  and  foe,  the  storm  and  the  darkness 
are  by  the  one  compared  to  the  solemn  legislation  on 

1  Letter  t9  his  Clergy  (1868),  p.  u, 

S 


274        THE   VATICAN   DECISION       [CHAP.  xvn. 

Sinai ;  by  the  other  to  tokens  of  divine  displeasure  and 
approaching  desolation.  But  whatever  constructions 
were  placed  upon  the  circumstance,  the  dogma  decreed 
indisputably  declared  that — 

"  The  Definition  affirms  that  the  Roman  Pontiff,  when 
he  speaks  ex  cathedra — that  is,  when  in  discharge  of  the 
office  of  Pastor  and  Doctor  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,  by  the  divine  assistance  promised  to  him  in 
Blessed  Peter — is  possessed  of  that  Infallibility  with 
which  the  Divine  Redeemer  willed  that  His  Church 
should  be  endowed  for  defining  doctrine  regarding  faith 
and  morals.  And  that,  therefore,  such  definitions  of 
the  Roman  Pontiff  are  irreformable  of  themselves  and 
not  from  the  consent  of  the  Church." l 

For  a  few  more  meetings  the  diminished  Council 
lingered  on.2  The  eighty  -  seventh  Congregation  was 
held  on  I3th  August,  when  the  total  of  Bishops  present 
was  reduced  to  136.  Two  further  Sessions  were  held 
on  23rd  August  and  ist  of  September,  when  the 
numbers  dwindled  still  further  to  127  and  104.  But 
for  all  real  purposes  the  Council  met  no  more  after 
the  fourth  Public  Session  and  the  proclamation  of 
Infallibility. 

1  See  Manning's  Pastoral  (1870) :   The   Vatican  Council  and  its  Defini 
tion^  p.  57. 

2  Acta,  p.  763. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


THE  MINORITY  AFTER  THE  VATICAN  DECREE 

THE  1 8th  of  July  1870  is  from  any  point  of  view  one 
of  the  most  critical  days  in  the  history  of  the  Papacy. 
It  is  the  transition  from  old  Catholicism  into  new. 
It  is  the  consummation  of  a  theory  of  spiritual  authority  ; 
the  centralising  and  condensing  of  all  power  in  one 
individual.  It  is  not  in  the  least  the  necessary  or  the 
logical  conclusion  of  the  principle  of  authority :  for  the 
expression  of  authority,  either  through  the  Collective 
Episcopate  or  through  reception  by  the  Universal 
Church,  is  just  as  consistent  and  just  as  logical ;  and 
has  the  additional  advantage  of  corresponding  with 
the  primitive  facts  of  Christian  history. 

The  1 8th  of  July  was  also  a  momentous  date  in  the 
annals  of  the  Roman  temporal  power.  On  the  very  next 
day  began  the  Franco-Prussian  War.  From  that  date 
onwards  the  tragedy  of  conflict  precluded  any  meeting 
of  German  and  French  Bishops  in  Council  at  Rome. 
The  Council  was  necessarily  interrupted,  its  resumption 
indefinitely  postponed.  The  disaster  to  France  meant 
the  recalling  of  the  French  troops  from  Rome.  Then 
followed  the  capture  of  the  city  by  United  Italy,  and 
the  establishment  of  the  Italian  Throne  at  the  gates 
of  the  Vatican.  The  temporal  power  of  the  Papacy 

275 


276  AFTER  THE   DECREE  [CHAP. 

vanished  like  a  dream,  and  Pius  IX.  considered  himself 
a  prisoner  within  the  Vatican  precincts.  The  canon 
of  the  Castle  of  St  Angelo  announced  the  entry  of 
King  Humbert,  and  various  convents  and  palaces  were 
seized  and  confiscated  for  secular  departments  and 
imperial  uses. 

A  curious  Italian  comment  on  the  opposition  in  the 
French    Episcopate    may   be    found    in    the    diary    of 
Cardinal  Pitra,  a  learned  member  of  the  Benedictine 
Order,  resident  during  the  Council  in  Rome.     Cardinal 
Pitra  was  librarian  of  the  Vatican,  and  placed  himself 
in  that  capacity  at  the  disposal  of  the  Bishops.     If  he 
kept  aloof  from  the  intrigues  of  every  kind  which,  says 
his  biographer,  were  then  so  numerous,  he  kept  a  care 
ful    diary  of  the  events  in  which  he  displays  himself 
as   a   decided    Ultramontane.      He   even   adopted   the 
paradox   that   the   passing   of  the   new   decree   would 
diminish   rather   than  increase  the  abyss  between  the 
Eastern  Churches  and  Rome.     But  Pitra's  comments 
after  the  French  retreat  illustrates  contemporary  feel 
ing.     He  thought  that  the  Franco-German  War,  which 
immediately  broke  out,  was  providentially  designed  to 
prevent  concerted  action  between  the  Bishops  of  these 
two  countries.     When  the  Italians  entered  Rome  one 
of   their    first    acts    was    to    destroy   the    villa  where 
Dupanloup  during  the  Council  had  resided.     This  was, 
according  to  Pitra,  because  Providence  desired  to  efface 
the  reminders  of  opposition.     Pitra  traced  the  course  of 
the  war,  and  noted  how  the  soldiers  advanced  through 
Metz,  Rheims,  Paris,  and  Orleans — all  Gallican  cities ; 
whereas    they    did    not    reach    Besan9on,   Dijon,   and 
Marseilles  —  all  Ultramontane  Episcopates.     "We  are 
here,"   murmurs   the  Cardinal,  "witnesses  to  the  pre 
liminaries  of  the  Judgment  Day." 

Cecconi,  Archbishop  of  Florence,  who  collected  many 


xvin.]         DIFFICULTIES  OF  ASSENT         277 

documents  concerned  with  the  struggle,  relates  that 
Pius  IX.  used  to  distinguish  three  periods  of  the 
Council :  the  preparations ;  the  assemblies ;  the  con 
clusion.  Of  these,  the  first  period  was  Satanic,  the 
second  Human,  the  third  Divine.1 

But  before  a  minority  Bishop  could  assent  to  the 
new  Decree,  there  were  questions  to  be  faced  and 
answered ;  questions  which  he  must  answer  in  his  own 
behalf,  and  which  also  he  was  certain  to  find  assailing 
him,  whether  from  his  Clergy  or  Laity,  who  like  himself 
had  hitherto  deprecated  the  doctrine  or  disbelieved  it. 
There  was  the  question,  perhaps,  first  of  all,  Is  this 
Council  ecumenical  ?  Is  it  a  true  exponent  of  the 
Universal  Church  ?  There  are  Councils  of  many  kinds, 
with  varying  degrees  of  authority,  legitimately  responded 
to  with  varying  degrees  of  respect.  Is  this  Council 
of  the  highest  kind — that  which  possesses  a  real  and 
absolute  finality  ?  This  question  was  widely  debated 
within  the  Roman  body.  It  was  said  by  high  authorities 
in  the  Roman  Communion  that  the  Vatican  Council 
did  not  fulfil  the  conditions  of  freedom  essential  to  the 
creation  of  a  dogma  of  the  faith.  Many  writers  of  the 
period  assert  this ;  some  in  the  most  impassioned 
terms.  Hefele  emphatically  declared  it.  Some  affirmed 
that  moral  unanimity  was  essential  to  representation  of 
the  Universal  Church.  Such  unanimity,  it  was  notorious, 
the  vote  for  Infallibility  did  not  possess.  Accordingly 
there  was  no  rush  of  the  defeated  Bishops  into  immediate 
acquiescence.  On  the  contrary,  there  was  suspense, 
uncertainty,  delay.  Individual  isolated  Bishops  took  no 
decided  steps.  They  waited  to  see  what  others  would 
do,  what  time  would  produce,  what  thought  and  reflec 
tion  might  suggest. 

Fessler,     indeed,    late     Secretary    of    the    Vatican 

1  Baunard,  Histoire  de  Cardinal  Pie,  p.  353. 


278         MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE        [CHAP. 

Assembly,  assured  them  that  their  course  was  clear. 
He  drew  a  sketch  of  the  conduct  which  he  considered 
would  be  ideal  for  a  perplexed  Bishop  under  these 
trying  circumstances. 

"If  even  up  to  ...  the  last  General  Congregation 
before  the  Solemn  Session  a  Bishop  is  not  satisfied  as 
to  all  his  difficulties,  or  if  he  thinks  it  better  that  the 
decision  should  not  yet  be  pronounced  on  such  and 
such  a  doctrine,  he  may,  in  the  interval  between  the 
last  General  Congregation  and  the  Solemn  Session, 
acquire  a  full  conviction  on  the  subject  by  discoursing 
with  other  theologians,  by  study  of  the  subject  and  by 
prayer,  and  may  thus  overcome  his  last  difficulties, 
and  see  that  it  is  well  that  the  definition  should  be 
made." 

This  portion  of  Fessler's  advice  was  not  much  use 
since  it  appeared  subsequently  to  the  final  Session. 
Whether  the  advice  to  "acquire  a  full  conviction"  in 
the  interval  between  the  last  General  Congregation  and 
the  Solemn  Session  would  have  been  very  valuable,  may 
be  judged  from  the  fact  that  the  interval  for  "discourse 
with  other  theologians,"  "  study  and  prayer,"  was  two 
days.  The  subsequent  struggles  will  show  what  the 
minority  Bishops  thought  of  acquiring  a  full  conviction 
in  two  days. 

Should,  however,  the  best  use  of  the  interval  prove 
unavailing,  Fessler's  advice  was  as  follows  : — 

"  Nay,  even  if  he  cannot  attain  this  full  conviction 
and  insight  into  the  matter  by  any  exertion  of  his  own, 
he  will  wait  for  the  decision  of  the  Council  with  a 
calm  trust  in  God,  without  himself  taking  part  in  it, 
because  up  to  this  point  he  lacks  the  necessary  certainty 
of  conviction.  When,  however,  the  Council  by  its 
decision  puts  an  end  to  the  matter,  then  at  length 
his  Catholic  conscience  tells  him  plainly  what  he  must 


xvm.]  FESSLER'S   ADVICE  279 

now  think,  and  what  he  must  now  do;  for  it  is  then 
that  the  Catholic  Bishop,  whom  hitherto  unsolved 
difficulties  have  kept  from  participation  in  the  Public 
Session,  and  from  the  solemn  voting,  says :  *  Now  it 
is  undoubtedly  certain  that  this  doctrine  is  revealed 
by  God,  and  is  therefore  a  portion  of  the  Catholic  faith, 
and  therefore  I  accept  it  on  faith,  and  must  now 
proclaim  it  to  my  clergy  and  people  as  a  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  The  difficulties  which  hitherto 
made  it  hard  for  me  to  give  my  consent,  and  to  the 
perfect  solution  of  which  I  have  not  even  yet  attained, 
must  be  capable  of  a  solution ;  and  so  I  shall  honestly 
busy  myself  with  all  the  powers  of  my  soul  to  find 
their  solution  for  myself,  and  for  those  whose  instruc 
tion  God  has  confided  to  my  care." 

Fessler  omits  all  recognition  of  the  possibility  that 
men  if  placed  in  a  dilemma  between  Authority  and 
History  may  choose  the  latter.  The  effect  of  the  Decree 
on  many  Bishops  was  not  in  the  least  to  compel  the 
confession,  *  Now  it  is  undoubtedly  certain  that  this 
doctrine  is  revealed ' :  rather  it  was  to  awaken  the 
criticism,  now  it  is  profoundly  uncertain  whether 
this  Council  is  ecumenical. 

Such  is  Fessler's  advice  to  Bishops  who  doubted  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine.  To  those  who  only  considered 
its  definition  inopportune  his  counsel  was : — 

"  Those  Bishops  who  in  the  last  General  Congregation 
voted  with  the  non  placets •,  only  because  they  really 
thought  it  was  not  a  good  thing,  not  necessary,  not 
for  the  benefit  of  souls  in  countries  well  known  to  them, 
and  who  for  this  reason  abstained  from  taking  part 
in  this  decision,  may  after  the  solemn  decision,  if  they 
think  it  advisible,  represent  to  the  faithful  of  their 
dioceses  the*  position  which  they  previously  adopted 
towards  the  doctrine,  in  order  that  their  conduct  may 
not  be  misunderstood.  But  they  must  now  themselves 


280         MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

unhesitatingly  accept  the  doctrine  which  has  been 
decided,  and  make  it  known  to  their  people  in  its  true 
and  proper  bearings,  without  reserve,  and  in  such  a 
manner  that  the  injurious  effects  which  they  themselves 
apprehended  may  be  as  much  as  possible  obviated  and 
removed ;  for  it  is  not  permitted  to  the  Bishop,  as  the 
divinely  -  appointed  teacher  of  the  clergy  and  people, 
to  be  silent  about  or  to  withhold  a  doctrine  of  the  Faith 
revealed  by  God,  because  he  apprehends  or  thinks  that 
some  may  take  offence  at  it.  Nay,  rather  it  is  his 
business  so  prudently  to  bring  it  about  in  the  declara 
tion  of  that  doctrine,  that  its  true  sense  and  import 
may  hereafter  be  clearly  represented,  all  erroneous 
misrepresentations  of  it  be  excluded,  the  reasons  for 
the  decision  of  the  doctrine  brought  out  plainly,  and 
all  objections  to  it  zealously  met  and  answered."1 

No  one  gave  greater  weight  to  the  obvious  difficulties 
which  the  methods  employed  at  Rome  had  created 
for  the  Decree,  no  one  formulated  them  with  more 
simplicity  and  frankness  than  Dr  Newman.  His  letters 
showed  how  he  laboured  to  suggest  plausible  grounds 
for  assent  to  the  new  Decree,  while  leaving  the 
ecumenical  character  of  the  Council  for  future  solution. 
And,  remembering  that  these  letters  were  addressed 
to  the  believers  and  not  to  the  outer  world,  nothing 
can  show  more  strikingly  than  the  arguments  which 
Dr  Newman  employs,  the  profound  perplexity  into 
which  many  Romanists  were  thrown. 

In  a  letter2  written  six  days  after  the  Decree  was 
passed  he  says : — 

"  I  saw  the  new  Definition  yesterday,  and  am  pleased 
at  its  moderation — that  is,  if  the  doctrine  is  to  be  defined 
at  all.  The  terms  are  vague  and  comprehensive ;  and 
personally  I  have  no  difficulty  in  admitting  it.  The 

1  Fessler,  True  and  False  Infallibility,  p.  21. 

2  See  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  pp.  96,  97,  98,  99. 


xvm.]        DIFFICULTIES   OF   ASSENT          281 

question  is,  Does  it  come  to  me  with  the  authority  of 
an  Ecumenical  Council? 

"  Now  the  primd  facie  argument  is  in  favour  of  its 
having  that  authority.  The  Council  was  legitimately 
called ;  it  was  more  largely  attended  than  any  Council 
before  it.  ... 

"Were  it  not  then  for  certain  circumstances  under 
which  the  Council  made  the  definition,  I  should  receive 
that  definition  at  once. 

"  Even  as  it  is,  if  I  were  called  upon  to  profess  it, 
I  should  be  unable,  considering  it  came  from  the  Holy 
Father  and  the  competent  local  authorities,  at  once  to 
refuse  to  do  so.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  there  are  reasons  for  a  Catholic,  till  better  informed, 
to  suspend  his  judgment  on  its  validity. 

"  We  all  know  that  ever  since  the  opening  of  the 
Council  there  has  been  a  strenuous  opposition  to  the 
definition  of  the  doctrine ;  and  that,  at  the  time  when 
it  was  actually  passed,  more  than  eighty  Fathers 
absented  themselves  from  the  Council,  and  would  have 
nothing  to  do  with  its  act.  But  if  the  fact  be  so,  that 
the  Fathers  were  not  unanimous,  is  the  definition  valid  ? 
This  depends  upon  the  question  whether  unanimity  at 
least  moral  is  or  is  not  necessary  for  its  validity  ?  As 
at  present  advised  I  think  it  is.  ... 

"  Certainly  Pius  IV.  lays  great  stress  on  the  unanimity 
of  the  Fathers  in  the  Council  of  Trent.  .  .  .  Far  different 
has  been  the  case  now — though  the  Council  is  not  yet 
finished.  But  if  I  must  now  at  once  decide  what  to 
think  of  it,  I  should  consider  that  all  turned  on  what 
the  dissentient  Bishops  now  do. 

"  If  they  separate  and  go  home  without  acting  as 
a  body,  if  they  act  only  individually  or  as  individuals, 
and  each  in  his  own  way,  then  I  should  not  recognise 
in  their  opposition  to  the  majority  that  force,  firmness, 
and  unity  of  view,  which  creates  a  real  case  of  want 
of  moral  unanimity  in  the  Council.  .  .  ." 

But  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  dogmas  which 
men  are  recommended  to  accept  on  such  extenuating 


282  MINORITY   AFTER  DECREE        [CHAP. 

pleas,  dogmas  whose  irregularity  is  acknowledged 
so  long  as  their  validity  is  saved,  dogmas  which 
depend  for  their  acceptance  on  the  melting  away 
of  the  episcopal  minority,  were  evidently  straining  the 
faith  of  Catholics  almost  to  breaking  point,  or  they 
would  never  have  been  defended  in  such  a  manner. 
Here  is  nothing  of  the  devout  thankfulness  for  fuller 
enlightenment,  or  the  triumph  of  truth ;  nothing  of 
the  glad  recognition  of  a  decision  guided  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Newman  could  never  have  treated  the  Nicene 
Council  as  he  did  the  Vatican.  Behind  these  endeavours, 
to  prevent  secession  or  schism,  lies  Newman's  recorded 
conviction  in  his  letter  to  Ullathorne. 

Newman's  theory  that  the  ecumenical  character  of 
the  Council  might  be  ascertained  from  its  ultimate 
acceptance,  that  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the  defeated 
minority  would  atone  for  any  irregularities  in  the  pass 
ing  of  the  Decree,  by  no  means  carried  conviction  to 
many  of  the  perplexed.  The  nature  of  the  doctrine 
decreed  seemed  to  exclude  this  kind  of  defence.  For 
if  the  utterances  of  the  Pope  are  infallible  of  themselves, 
and  not  from  the  consent  of  the  Episcopate,  it  is 
difficult  to  base  that  Infallibility  upon  episcopal  con 
sent.  Instead  of  waiting  to  see  what  the  Episcopate 
might  do  it  would  appear  more  appropriate  to  consider 
what  the  Pope  had  done.  And  in  another  letter 
written  within  the  same  anxious  month  this  is  pre 
cisely  the  view  which  Newman  takes.1 

"  I  have  been  thinking  over  the  subject  which  just 
now  gives  you  and  me,  with  thousands  of  others,  who 
care  for  religion,  so  much  concern. 

"  First,  till  better  advised,  nothing  shall  make  me 
say  that  a  mere  majority  in  a  Council,  as  opposed  to 
a  moral  unanimity,  in  itself  creates  an  obligation  to 

1  See  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  98. 


xvni.]  NEWMAN'S   LETTERS  283 

receive  its  dogmatic  Decrees.  This  is  a  point  of  history 
and  precedent,  and,  of  course,  on  further  examination  I 
may  find  myself  wrong  in  the  view  which  I  take  of 
history  and  precedent ;  but  I  do  not,  cannot  see,  that  a 
majority  in  the  present  Council  can  of  itself  rule  its  own 
sufficiency  without  such  external  testimony. 

"  But  there  are  other  means  by  which  I  can  be 
brought  under  the  obligation  of  receiving  a  doctrine 
as  a  dogma." 

And  he  proceeds  to  enumerate  uninterrupted  tradi 
tion,  Scripture  inference,  etc.  And  then  he  propounds 
the  theory  that  "the  fact  of  a  legitimate  Superior 
having  defined  it,  may  be  an  obligation  in  conscience 
to  receive  it  with  an  internal  assent.  ...  In  this  case 
I  do  not  receive  it  on  the  word  of  the  Council,  but 
on  the  Pope's  self-assertion." 

This  he  supports  by  an  appeal  to  the  historic 
authority  which  the  Pope  has  actually  exercised,  and  to 

"  the  consideration  that  our  merciful  Lord  would  not 
care  so  little  for  His  elect  people,  the  multitude  of  the 
faithful,  as  to  allow  their  visible  Head  and  such  a  large 
number  of  Bishops  to  lead  them  into  error  ;  and  an  error 
so  serious,  if  an  error." 

No  one  can  fail  to  be  impressed  with  Newman's 
painful  consciousness  of  the  Council's  indefensible  irregu 
larities  ;  with  his  refusal  to  acknowledge  a  powerful 
majority  as  equivalent  to  moral  unanimity ;  with  his 
desire  to  see  if  the  dogma  cannot  be  accepted  on  other 
grounds  than  the  Council's  authority,  and  in  particular 
on  the  Pope's  self-assertion.  All  this  would,  of  course, 
be  absolutely  unconvincing  to  any  adherent  of  the 
ancient  conception  that  the  supreme  authority  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  Pope's  self-assertion,  but  in  the 
Collective  Episcopate.  But  it  manifests  profound  mis 
givings  about  the  Vatican  Council  and  its  methods. 


284        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE          [CHAP. 

The  thought  that  the  merciful  Lord  would  not  permit 
His  people  to  be  led  into  error  on  so  serious  a  subject 
depends  for  its  value  on  the  solemn  question,  whether 
the  gifts  of  God  are  in  any  way  conditional.  If  the 
transmission  of  grace  depends  upon  conformity  to 
conditions  so  also  does  the  transmission  of  truth.  If 
human  co-operation  is  necessary  to  the  achievement  of 
human  enlightenment,  then  the  neglect  of  compliance 
with  these  conditions,  the  refusal  of  that  co-operation, 
will  be  attended  with  serious  losses  which  the  merciful 
Lord  must  not  be  expected  to  prevent.  The  graver 
the  misgivings  created  by  the  coercive  methods  of 
the  Vatican  majority,  the  more  urgent  becomes  the 
enquiry,  whether  their  refusal  to  comply  with  the  true 
conditions  of  conciliar  freedom  would  not  be  punished 
by  the  nemesis  of  a  misleading  Decree.  Newman's 
misgivings  on  the  Council's  integrity  cancel  his  appeal 
to  the  thought  of  the  mercifulness  of  our  Lord.  This, 
at  any  rate,  is  what  many  within  the  Roman  Com 
munion  undoubtedly  felt.  They  did  not  believe  in  the 
rightfulness  of  expecting  Providence  to  nullify  the 
perverseness  and  self-will  of  an  overwhelming  majority 
Subtle,  attractive,  bearing  in  every  line  of  it  the  dis 
tinctive  impress  of  his  wonderful  personality,  Newman's 
defence  is  remarkable  rather  as  a  tour  deforce  than  for 
argumentative  solidity.  Newman's  personal  assent  to 
the  dogma  was  indisputably  complete.  He  said, 
indeed,  all  that  it  was  possible  to  say.  But  even  his 
brilliant  genius  could  scarcely  efface  the  effect  of  his 
own  letter  written  to  Bishop  Ullathorne  before  the 
dogma  was  passed. 

"  Moreover,"  he  wrote,  "  a  letter  of  mine  became 
public  property.  That  letter  .  .  .  was  one  of  the  most 
confidential  I  ever  wrote  in  my  life.  I  wrote  it  to  my 
own  Bishop  under  a  deep  sense  of  the  responsibility  I 


xviii.]  NEWMAN'S  LETTERS  285 

should  incur  were  I  not  to  speak  out  to  him  my  whole 
mind.  I  put  the  matter  from  me  when  I  had  said  my 
say,  and  kept  no  proper  copy  of  the  letter.  To  my 
dismay  I  saw  it  in  the  public  prints :  to  this  day  I  do 
not  know,  nor  suspect,  how  it  got  there.  I  cannot 
withdraw  it,  for  I  never  put  it  forward,  so  it  will  remain 
on  the  columns  of  newspapers  whether  I  will  or  not ; 
but  I  withdraw  it  as  far  as  I  can  by  declaring  that  it 
was  never  meant  for  the  public  eye." 

Certainly  it  needed  no  assurance  from  the  writer  to 
convince  us  that  this  letter  was  not  designed  for 
publicity.  It  is  equally  impossible  not  to  feel  that  in 
that  letter  we  have  the  writer's  mind  in  its  full  expres 
sion.  The  very  fact  that  it  was  never  meant  for  the 
public  eye  means  that  it  was  written  without  that 
caution  and  restraint  imposed  by  watchful  critics  and 
extremist  partisans  always  ready  to  pounce  upon 
Newman  and  denounce  him  as  a  minimiser  at  Rome. 
Thus  we  have  his  frankest  declaration  here.  And  that 
declaration  was  much  too  frank  to  be  convenient.  It 
naturally  hampered  him  now  that  the  doctrine  was 
decreed.  A  certain  inconsistency  was  required  of  him, 
and  is  reflected  in  his  letters.  Before  the  Council  decreed 
he  wrote l  of  the  disputed  doctrine,  "  I  have  ever  thought 
it  likely  to  be  true  ;  never  thought  it  certain."  After  the 
decision  he  wrote : 2  "  For  myself,  ever  since  I  was  a 
Catholic,  I  have  held  the  Pope's  Infallibility  as  a  matter 
of  theological  opinion  ;  at  least  I  see  nothing  in  the 
definition  which  necessarily  contradicts  Scripture, 
Tradition,  or  History."  Before  the  decision  he  wrote  : 
"If  it  is  God's  will  that  the  Pope's  Infallibility  be 
defined,  then  it  is  God's  will  to  throw  back  the  times 
and  moments  of  the  triumph  which  He  has  destined 

1  Thureau  Dangin,  Letter  to  Ward,  iii.  p.  119. 

2  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  99. 


286          MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE       [CHAP. 

for  His  kingdom."  After  the  decision  he  wrote :  "  For 
myself  I  did  not  call  it  inopportune,  for  times  and 
seasons  are  known  to  God  alone  .  .  .  nor  in  accepting 
as  a  dogma  what  I  had  ever  held  as  a  truth,  could  1 
be  doing  violence  to  any  theological  view  or  conclusion 
of  my  own."1  No  one  will  scrutinise  too  closely,  or 
make  exacting  demands  of  rigorous  self-  identity,  in 
letters  written  in  the  strain  of  so  vast  a  change  as  that 
which  the  new  Decree  had  wrought.  Yet  the  various 
statements  are  part  of  the  evidence  to  the  effect 
produced,  by  the  doctrine,  upon  the  gifted  mind  then 
straining  all  its  efforts  to  reassure  the  unsettled  and 
retain  them  in  the  fold. 

The  second  great  question  to  be  answered  was,  Does 
the  Infallibility  Dogma  accord  with  History  ?  Upon 
this  subject  Roman  writers  were  greatly  divided.  Some 
asserted  boldly  that  Papal  Infallibility  had  always 
been  held  in  the  Church.  Manning  stated  this  in  its 
extremest  form.  The  doctrine  had  always  been  of 
divine  faith.  Newman  was  quite  unable  to  accept  this 
view,  and  supported  Gladstone  in  rejecting  it. 

"  Newman,"  says  Ambrose  De  Lisle,  in  a  letter 
to  Gladstone,  "  considers  your  reply  to  Archbishop 
Manning's  contention  that  Papal  Infallibility  was 
always  held  as  a  dogma  of  divine  faith  complete,  and 
that  you  are  triumphant  in  your  denial  of  it — but,  he 
adds,  that  is  nothing  to  me.  I  conclude,"  says  De 
Lisle,2  "because  he  deduces  it,  and  holds  that  the 
Church  has  deduced  it  in  these  latter  days  out  of  the 
three  texts  he  quotes  in  his  letter  to  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk." 

According  to  this  view  then  of  Newman,  Papal  Infalli 
bility  was  not  to  be  sought  in  history.  It  would  not 

1  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  17. 
a  Lift  of  DC  Lisle,  ii.  p.  48. 


xvm.]  NEWMAN  AND  DE  LISLE         287 

be  found  in  the  age,  for  instance,  of  the  Fathers — an 
age  which  Newman  knew  profoundly.  It  has  slowly 
dawned  upon  the  self-consciousness  of  the  Church,  and 
come  to  be  realised  that  it  possessed  this  organ  of 
infallible  utterance.  Thus  the  necessity  for  squaring  the 
Vatican  Decree  with  History  was  entirely  dispensed  with. 
The  principle  of  development  was  utilised  to  facilitate 
its  acceptance  and  explain  the  apparent  anomalies. 

The  Pope  said  Newman  is  "heir  by  default"  to  the 
ecumenical  hierarchy  of  the  fourth  century.  What 
was  then  ascribed  to  all  the  Bishops  is  now  ascribed 
exclusively  to  him.  Precisely  so.  But  by  what  right  ? 
Newman  does  not  say.  The  possibility  of  develop 
ment  in  excess,  a  perverse  development,  is  not  discussed. 

Thus  the  new  Decree  was,  according  to  Newman, 
if  De  Lisle  rightly  interprets  him,  a  deduction  from 
three  texts,  of  which  the  chief  undoubtedly  was,  "  I  have 
prayed  for  thee  that  thy  faith  fail  not."  No  perpetual 
unvarying  tradition  could  be  claimed  for  it.  But  the 
Church  makes  inferences  from  Scripture,  and  comes  to 
realise,  what  once  it  did  not  realise,  that  the  Roman 
Pontiff  is  infallible. 

Newman's  theory  of  the  relation  of  Papal  Infallibility 
to  History  greatly  perplexed  some  whom  it  was  designed 
to  help. 

"  I  confess  that  would  not  satisfy  me,"  wrote  De 
Lisle.  .  .  .l  I  am  far  from  going  to  all  lengths  with 
the  Archbishop  (Manning)  yet  ...  I  hold  .  .  .  that 
Papal  Infallibility  restricted  as  it  is  by  the  Vatican 
Definition,  was  always  a  part  of  Divine  Revela 
tion.  ...  I  maintain  that  it  was  always  believed  by 
the  orthodox.  .  .  ." 

Newman  once  wrote :  "  Whether  the  minute  facts  of 
history  will  bear  me  out  in  this  view  I  leave  to  others 

1  Life  of  DC  Lisle,  ii.  p.  48. 


288          MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE        [CHAP. 

to  determine."  This  distressed  a  student  of  history 
such  as  Lord  Acton.  "  Dollinger,"  said  Acton,  "  would 
have  feared  to  adopt  a  view  for  its  own  sake,  without 
knowing  how  it  would  be  borne  out  by  the  minute  facts 
of  history."  * 

There  were  able  and  learned  members  of  the  Roman 
Communion  to  whom  it  was  impossible  to  take  refuge 
in  Newman's  theory,  that  this  was  a  case  of  legitimate 
development.  The  Catholic  consciousness  of  early  ages 
presented  a  theory  out  of  which  Papal  Infallibility  could 
never  legitimately  grow.  For  the  primitive  conception 
was  the  negative,  they  held,  of  such  a  view.  The 
primitive  theory,  as  the  Councils  of  the  Church  made 
plain,  placed  the  final  authority  in  the  Collective 
Episcopate.  The  transference  of  this  authority  from 
the  entire  body  to  one  individual  was  to  them  no  true 
development  at  all,  but  a  dislocation  in  the  Church's 
original  constitution.  It  really  meant  requiring  one 
organ  to  discharge  the  functions  of  another ;  depriving 
the  original  organ  of  what  had  hitherto  constituted  its 
essential  function.  And  this  alteration  or  reversal  of 
functions  was  beyond  the  legitimate  power  of  any 
authority  to  make.  It  was  indeed  admitted  to  be  a 
claim  of  vital  character.  Pius  IX.  declared  the  doctrine 
to  be  the  very  essence  and  basis  of  Catholicity.  Strange, 
men  thought,  that  this  essence  and  basis  had  remained 
unrealised  for  many  centuries  in  the  Church's  conscious 
ness.  And  when  it  was  said,  in  reply,  that  practically 
the  Pope  had  exercised  this  Infallibility,  and  that  its 
exercise  had  met  with  a  practical  recognition  and 
acceptance,  Roman  writers  answered  at  once,  "  No; 
this  is  not  true."  Undoubtedly  the  papal  discussions 
have  been  accepted  and  believed.  But  hitherto  there 
has  always  been  space  for  belief  that  their  validity 

1  History  of  Freedom,  p.  408. 


xvin.]  DIFFICULTIES  IN  ASSENT        289 

depended   not   on  their  own   inherent  weight,  but  on 
the  consent  of  the  Church. 

Professor  Schulte,  for  instance,  declared  that  though 
a  Catholic  born  and  bred,  he  had  never  believed  in 
Papal  Infallibility ;  nor  could  he  find  any  authority 
for  the  July  Decree  either  in  Scripture,  or  in  the  Fathers, 
or  in  any  other  source  of  historical  information. 

Fessler  endeavoured  to  crush  this  resistance  by 
labelling  it  private  judgment.  He  says  of  Schulte  that 
he  "  refuses  to  accept  the  definition  de  fide  of  an  Ecu 
menical  Council ;  he  cares  nothing  for  the  authority  of 
the  living  teaching  Church ;  only  for  what  he  thinks 
he  finds  in  Scripture,  in  the  Fathers,  and  in  other 
genuine  ancient  sources.  This  is  the  way  to  forsake 
the  Catholic  Church  altogether.  Every  one  is  to  follow 
his  own  guidance,  his  own  private  judgment." l 

Expressed  in  such  a  form  it  seems  a  reductio  ad 
absurdum.  Surely  the  individual  may  be  mistaken? 
And  in  the  multitude  of  counsellors  there  is  wisdom. 
Professor  This  on  one  side,  the  Episcopate  on  the  other : 
can  we  doubt  which  to  follow  ?  Why  then  should  not 
the  professor  make  a  sacrifice  of  his  intellect  ?  Because 
if  you  destroy  a  man's  confidence  in  his  historic  judgment 
in  one  instance,  you  ruin  its  validity  in  all  others.  Now, 
since  it  is  by  such  a  judgment  that  Christianity  itself 
is  accepted,  to  bid  a  man  disparage  his  own  judgment 
of  history,  is  to  undermine  the  very  basis  of  his  religion. 

Men  found  themselves,  therefore,  placed  by  the 
Decree  in  a  very  terrible  dilemma.  An  ecumenical 
decision  must  be  true.  But  history  appears  to  refute 
it.  To  accept  the  decision  is  to  contradict  the  fact  of 
history.  To  accept  history  is  to  reject  authority.  That 
was  the  difficulty.  But  no  man  can  without  grievous 
loss  abandon  what  appears  to  him  the  truth.  Others 

1  Fessler,  p.  24. 

T 


290         MINORITY   AFTER    DECREE        [CHAP. 

endeavour  to  reconcile  Catholics  to  the  new  Decree 
by  extenuating  the  greatness  of  the  change.  Bishop 
Ullathorne  informed  his  people  that  "  the  Pope  always 
wielded  this  Infallibility,  and  all  men  knew  this  to  be 
the  fact.  What  practical  change,  then,  has  the  defini 
tion  made?"1  Yet  the  same  writer  could  urge2  that 
the  character  of  the  age,  and  the  opposition  within  the 
Church,  "  rendered  it  all  the  more  important  that  the 
Pope  should  be  armed  with  that  full  strength."  It 
was  then  a  great  practical  change.  And  this  is  what 
many  Romans  felt.  There  was  something  naive  in 
the  simplicity  with  which  Ullathorne  wrote : 3  "  The 
Infallibility  leaves  all  things  as  before,  excepting  that 
now  it  is  a  term  of  communion."  Leaves  all  things  as 
before!  except  that  formerly  men  could  disbelieve  it 
and  openly  deny  it,  while  now  it  is  a  term  of  com 
munion,  and  to  disbelieve  is  to  be  cast  out.  Ullathorne 
clearly  found  it  beyond  his  power  to  give  any  satisfac 
tion  to  the  intelligence  of  his  people.  It  amounted  to 
a  demand  of  blind  assent  to  the  hitherto  discredited. 

It  remains  to  trace  the  attitude  of  the  minority  toward 
the  new  Decree.  As  a  whole  they  give  the  impression 
of  having  been  crushed,  almost  stunned.  The  dreamlike 
rapidity  of  the  movements  during  these  last  six  months ; 
the  sudden  forcible  erection  of  a  hitherto  controvertible 
and  controverted  opinion  into  an  essential  element  of 
the  Eternal  Faith ;  the  consequent  intellectual  and 
moral  reversions  demanded  of  them,  left  them  in  a 
state  of  complete  disorganisation  and  confusion.  Their 
collective  inability  in  Rome  to  resist  in  the  final  Public 
Session  ;  their  opinion  that  such  resistance  would  be 
incompatible  with  the  respect  due  to  the  papal  office, 
form  conclusive  evidence  beforehand  of  their  inability 

1  Dollingeritcs,  p.  14.  2  Expostulation,  p.  50. 

3  Dollingcrites,  p.  15. 


xvm.]  DIFFICULTIES  IN  ASSENT          291 

to  continue  a  permanent  resistance  when  isolated  in 
their  different  dioceses.  The  individual  Bishop  was  a 
lesser  power  than  the  Bishops  assembled.  He  was 
separated  in  his  diocese  from  the  support  of  like  minded 
prelates.  And,  if  released  from  the  immediate  pressure 
of  papal  influence,  he  was  incapacitated  for  anything  like 
concerted  action.  As  Bishop,  he  lived  and  spoke  alone. 
Communication  was  difficult  owing  to  war.  Interna 
tional  Meetings  were  impossible.  Meanwhile  the  solitary 
Bishop  was  beset  by  all  the  local  influences  which  the 
Nuncios,  and  Jesuits  and  other  religious  orders,  knew  so 
thoroughly  well  how  to  wield.  Rome,  it  has  been  said, 
disbelieved  in  the  capacity  of  the  opposition  to  stand 
firm  ;  and  Rome  had  calculated  with  profound  insight 
and  accuracy. 

Several  fugitive  Bishops  took  the  precaution  before 
they  left  Rome  of  sending  a  letter  of  submission l  to  the 
coming  Decree. 

The  Archbishop  of  Cologne  explained  to  the  Pope 
that  having  given  a  qualified  vote  on  I3th  July  he 
cannot  conscientiously  vote  Yes  on  i8th  July.  Accord 
ingly,  with  great  distress,  and  out  of  reverence  for  the 
Pope,  he  will  avail  himself  of  the  permission  to  depart : 
adding  that  he  submits  himself  to  what  the  Council  is 
about  to  decree. 

The  Archbishop  of  Maintz  wrote  a  similar  apology. 
To  oppose,  in  the  Public  Session,  was  repugnant  to  his 
feelings :  nothing,  therefore,  remained  but  to  depart ; 
except  to  add  that  he  submitted  himself  to  the  Council's 
Decree,  just  as  if  he  had  remained  to  vote  approval. 

Before  submission  to  the  new  dogma,  the  question  was 
discussed,  What  constitutes  promulgation  of  a  Decree? 
Such  discussion  was  quite  in  keeping  with  precedent. 
The  Decrees  of  Trent  had  been  discussed  before  they 

1  Ada,  p.  993. 


292        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

were  admitted  into  the  Church  of  France.  Was  any  col- 
lective  acceptance  necessary,  before  the  dogma  could 
become  obligatory  upon  the  consciences  of  the  faithful  ? 
True  that  Infallibility  had  been  passed  at  Rome  ;  but  the 
Vatican  Council  was  not  closed — it  was  only  adjourned. 
Did  the  decisions  of  a  Council  become  obligations  until 
the  Council  itself  had  finished  its  work  ?  Questions  of 
this  character  were  argued  at  considerable  length  in  the 
hope  of  some  loophole  or  relief.  They  were,  however, 
promptly  crushed  by  a  letter  from  the  watchful  Antonelli 1 
to  the  Brussel's  Nuncio  to  the  effect  that  the  Decree  was 
ipso  facto  binding  on  the  Catholic  world,  and  needed  no 
further  publication.  This  cut  away  the  hope  to  which 
some  Bishops  clung,  that  they  would  not  be  required  to 
take  open  action  in  cases  where  they  knew  acceptance 
of  the  doctrine  to  be  morally  impossible. 


I.  AMONG  THE  FRENCH   ROMANISTS 

I.  The  Archbishop  of  Paris  voted,2  consistently  with  his 
entire  attitude,  against  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility, 
on  the  critical  day,  I3th  July.  In  the  interview  on 
Saturday  i6th,  he  prefaced  his  expostulations  with  a 
promise  to  submit ;  but  he  also  resolved  to  absent 
himself  from  the  Public  Session,  and  wrote  to  the  Pope 
to  say  that  he  should  not  be  present.  On  Sunday  the 
1 7th  he  saw  the  Pope  again,  and  said  farewell.  No 
allusion  was  made  to  the  events  of  the  morrow,  or  to  the 
Council's  voting.  Pius  confined  himself  to  benevolent 
generalities,  on  the  devotion  of  the  Archbishop  and 
clergy  of  Paris  to  the  interests  of  the  Church  and  of  the 
Holy  See.8  The  Pope  and  the  Archbishop  corresponded 

1  nth  August.     Ollivier,  ii.  p.  375  ;  Schulte,  p.  108. 

2  Acton,  p.  997.  3  Guillermin,  p.  254. 


XVIIL]     THE  PROCESS  OF  SUBMISSION       293 

subsequently ;  but  they  never  met  again.  Darboy  left 
Rome  when  the  Session  was  held,  and  returned  home 
to  his  diocese.  There  he  found  everything  in  confusion, 
for  the  war  against  Prussia  was  declared.  But  he 
assembled  his  clergy  at  once,  and  commended  them  for 
refusing  to  be  swayed  by  rumours  which  were  necessarily 
unreliable,  since  those  who  spoke  about  the  Council 
were  not  its  members,  while  those  who  were  its  members 
had  not  the  right  to  speak.1  If  there  had  been 
diversities  of  opinion  in  the  Council  on  certain  questions, 
these  diversities  were  concerned  less  with  the  intrinsic 
value  of  the  questions  than  with  the  losses  or  gains 
which  their  discussion  might  involve.  With  these,  and 
similar  generalities,  he  dismissed  them.  Further  dis 
cussion  and  conference  was  prevented  by  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War,  but  it  is  clear  that  Darboy  took  no  steps 
whatever  to  coerce  his  priests  into  explicit  confession 
of  the  new  decree  or  to  enquire  into  their  individual 
convictions. 

But  it  was  evident  that  Rome  was  more  than  dis 
contented  with  the  Archbishop's  indifference.  It  was 
desired  that  he  should  renew  his  assurances  of  personal 
belief,  and  exhibit  some  interest  in  the  conversion  of  the 
reluctant.  In  February  1871  Bishop  Maret  wrote  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Paris2  to  say  that  he  had  sent 
in  his  own  submission  in  the  previous  November. 

"  I  am  glad  to  hear  it,"  replied  the  Archbishop.  "  As  for 
myself,  separated  from  the  world  for  five  months  by 
the  siege  of  Paris,  I  have  been  unable  to  ascertain  what 
was  happening,  or  to  correspond  with  my  colleagues  or 
with  Rome.  I  have  therefore  done  nothing ;  although 
I  have  given  no  one  the  right  to  doubt  my  opinions. 
Indeed  the  Pope  knows  them.  He  has  my  letter  of 

1  Foulon,  p.  469  ;  Guillermin,  p.  257. 
2  Guillermin,  p.  259. 


294        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

1 8th  July.  It  was  not  so  much  the  basis  of  the  Decree 
as  the  question  of  its  opportuneness  which  made  us 
hesitate.  All  the  world  knows  this ;  and,  for  my  own 
part,  I  said  it  in  full  Council.  It  seems,  therefore,  to  me 
superfluous  to  affirm  to-day  that  I  accept  the  Decree  It 
would  be  even  misleading;  for  it  would  give  grounds 
to  the  suggestion  that  I  withheld  my  adherence  to  the 
present  time — which  is  false.  Still,  if  the  Holy  Father 
wishes,  for  the  sake  of  people  in  general,  that  such  a 
declaration  should  be  made,  it  is  a  formality  to  which 
I  will  unhesitatingly  yield." l 

The  Archbishop  found  it  prudent  to  take  this  course. 
In  March  1871,  he  sent  to  the  Pope  a  statement  of 
sincere  assent  to  the  Decree.2  He  said  that  the  War 
had  prevented  correspondence  hitherto,  and  that  his 
declaration  might  seem  superfluous.  But,  as  he  hears 
that  the  Pope  desires  it,  he  hastens  to  gratify  the  wish. 
It  was  chiefly  the  question  of  opportuneness — he  does 
not  say  entirely — which  had  prompted  his  opposition. 

Pius  IX.  replied — but  none  too  effusively.  The  Arch 
bishop  had  been  for  years  mistrusted  and  disliked  in 
Rome,  for  the  independence  of  his  actions,  his  determina 
tion  to  govern  his  diocese  himself,  and  his  rejection 
of  ultramontane  convictions.  It  was  scarcely  to  be 
expected  that  cordiality  could  exist  in  the  very 
moment  of  his  defeat.  And  his  submission  even  nowi 
was  to  say  the  least,  somewhat  curt.  It  stated  the 
fact :  no  less,  but  no  more.  It  is  not  the  letter  a  man 
could  write  who  believed  himself  to  be  the  privileged 
recipient  of  a  precious  revelation  of  God's  truth.  It  was 
the  bare  submission  to  a  dictate  which  could  not  be 
avoided  except  by  expulsion.  The  Pope  replied  that  he 
was  consoled  by  the  Archbishop's  sincere  assent  to  the 
dogmatic  definition  of  the  Ecumenical  Council  of  the 

1  Guillermin,  p.  259.  a  Acta,  p.  997. 


XVIIL]     THE  PROCESS  OF  SUBMISSION       295 

Vatican.  He  trusts  that  the  Archbishop  will  hasten  to 
propound  to  his  people  what  he  professes  himself  to 
believe.  With  this,  the  Pope  sends  his  apostolic  bene 
diction.  Newman  once  accused  Pusey  of  discharging 
an  olive  branch  from  a  catapult;  Pius  IX.  seems  here 
to  illustrate  the  art  of  conveying  a  rebuke  through 
the  instrumentality  of  a  blessing.  It  is  one  of  the 
ironies  of  this  story  that  the  letter  was  never  received.1 
These  were  the  days  of  the  Commune.  The  brave 
Archbishop,  after  exhibiting  the  most  striking  fortitude, 
was  shot  in  prison.  He  never  had  the  opportunity  to 
read,  or  act  upon,  the  Pope's  advice.  To  his  place,  but 
not  to  his  principles,  succeeded  Archbishop  Guibert, 
who  had  so  greatly  assisted  the  aims  of  Pius  IX.  by 
recommending,  in  the  Select  Committee  of  Proposals, 
that  the  new  doctrine  should  be  introduced  with  the 
Council's  deliberations.  So  the  old  order  changed. 

2.  Dupanloup,2  Bishop  of  Orleans,  voted  against  the 
doctrine  on  the  I3th  of  July,  and  left  for  his  diocese 
rather  than  be  present  at  the  Public  Session  when  the 
dogma  was  decreed.  He  wrote  a  letter  of  submission 
on  1 8th  February  1871.  He  says  that  he  has  been 
prevented  from  writing  by  the  Franco-Prussian  War. 
Hearing  that  His  Holiness  desires  to  know  his  attitude 
to  the  constitution  of  i8th  July,  he  wishes  to  say  that 
he  has  no  difficulty  in  the  matter. 

"  I  only  wrote  and  spoke,"  he  says,  "  against  the 
opportuneness  of  the  definition.  As  to  the  doctrine 
I  always  held  it  not  only  in  my  heart,  but  in  public 
writings.  ...  I  have  no  difficulty  in  again  declaring 
my  adhesion ;  only  too  happy  if  I  can  thereby  offer 
Your  Holiness  any  comfort  in  the  midst  of  his  heavy 
trials." 

1  Foulon,  p.  505.  2  Acton,  p.  999. 


296         MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

Since  his  return  from  Rome  he  has  written  to  his 
diocese  that  the  conflicts  of  the  Church  are  not  like 
those  of  the  world. 

These  assertions  of  Dupanloup  as  to  his  unvarying 
faith  may  possibly  explain  why  a  distinguished  fellow- 
countryman  and  head  of  the  French  Government1 
could  describe  him  in  such  terms  as  these :  "  everything 
about  him  indicates  the  irresistible  dominion  of  impres 
sions.  So  convinced  is  he  of  being  in  the  right  that 
he  fails  to  be  accurate  to  his  demonstrations.  He  is 
a  most  imperious  advocate  of  liberty,  and  always  under 
the  influence  of  preconceptions." 

3.  Gratry  may  be  taken  next :  Gratry — whose  famous 
four  letters  had  focussed  in  brilliant  light  the  diffi 
culties,  the  contradictions,  the  adverse  facts,  the  ignorant 
methods,  the  falsified  documents.  Men  wondered  what 
steps  the  former  priest  of  the  Oratory  would  now  take  ; 
now  that  the  thing  that  he  feared  had  come  to  pass, 
and  the  incredible  was  decreed.  Gratry  had  endured 
much  mental  agony.  "  His  own  peace  would  certainly 
have  been  better  insured,"  says  his  biographer,2  "had 
he  not  been  interrupted  in  that  later  contemplative 
study  of  Christian  philosophy  by  which  he  hoped  to 
do  somewhat  to  make  his  fellowmen  less  unhappy,  less 
unfit.  But  he  was  urged  as  a  matter  of  conscience  to 
enter  the  turmoil  of  polemical  strife,  a  strife  more  cruel  to 
one  who  retained  his  childlike  simplicity,  his  love  of 
truth,  and  his  boundless  charity,  to  the  last  hour  of  life." 

Gratry  was  very  ill  of  the  malady  which  killed  him  ; 
and  it  was  not  until  November  1871,  that  he  wrote3 
(evidently  questioned  by  Guibert,  the  new  Archbishop  of 
Paris) : 

1  Ollivier,  i.  p.  443. 

2Adolphe  Perraud,  Le  P.    Gratry  ses  Derniers  jours,  son  Testament 
Spirituel  (1872),  p.  43. 
8  Acta,  p.  1405. 


XVIIL]      THE  PROCESS  OF  SUBMISSION      297 

"  Had  I  not  been  very  ill  and  unable  to  write  a 
letter  I  should  have  long  since  sent  you  my  con 
gratulations.  I  desire  at  least  to  -  day,  my  lord, 
to  say  simply  what  it  appears  to  me  there  was  no 
necessity  to  say,  namely  that,  like  all  my  brethren  in 
the  priesthood,  I  accept  the  decrees  of  the  Vatican 
Council.  I  cancel  everything  contrary  to  the  decrees 
which  I  may  have  written  on  this  subject  before  the 
decision."1 

The  Archbishop  sent  a  kindly  reply  to  the  effect 
that  he  had  never  doubted  Gratry's  docility. 

"  By  such  noble  and  generous  examples  we  harmonise 
our  conduct  with  our  convictions,  and  prove  to  the 
world  that  we  are  sincere  in  maintaining  that  the  light 
of  faith  is  superior  to  that  of  our  feeble  and  vacillating 
reason." 

But  how  about  the  facts  of  history  ?  Gratry  effaced 
his  interpretation  ;  but  he  could  not  cancel  the  facts. 
How  abandon  his  former  convictions  ?  That  is  precisely 
what  Gratry's  colleagues  required  him  to  explain.  An 
explanation,  therefore,  he  attempted  to  give.  To  those 
who  reproved  him  for  accepting  without  reservation  the 
Council's  decrees,  he  explains  that,  before  the  Decision, 
he  argued  in  accordance  with  his  conscience  and  his 
right ;  since  the  Decision,  he  had  not  said  a  word. 

"Since  the  Decision,  and  immediately  after  it,  I  had 
two  interviews  with  my  Archbishop,  Mgr.  Darboy.2 
We  were  agreed  both  in  words  and  in  faith.  He  granted 
me  my  position  in  the  Church  of  Paris,  and  my  office 
of  Professor  of  Theology  at  the  Sorbonne.  I  was  there 
fore  at  unity  with  my  Bishop.  That  was  obvious.  It 
continued  for  nearly  a  year.  Therefore,  strictly  speak 
ing,  no  one  has  any  right  to  question  me ;  not  even 

1  Acta,  p.  1405. 
2  Guillermin,  Vie.  de  Mgr.  Darboy,  p.  261. 


298          MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE        [CHAP. 

Mgr.  Darboy's  successor.  To  require  of  me  a  public 
declaration  would  seem  like  revising  the  acts  of  his 
glorious  predecessor  and  martyr  for  the  faith.  It  is 
for  this  last  reason  most  of  all  that  those  among  my 
friends  who  urged  me  most  to  publish  some  declara 
tion  surprised  and  saddened  me.  I  have  constantly 
answered  them  that  I  have  nothing  to  say,  and  nothing 
to  write  upon  this  subject." 

But,  on  reflecting  that  there  was  no  necessity  to  cling 
tenaciously  to  strict  rights,  if  an  assurance  would  remove 
his  brethren's  anxiety,  Gratry  wrote  to  his  new  Arch 
bishop  a  letter  of  submission.  That,  he  says,  was  easy. 
What  would  not  have  been  easy  was  to  say  : — 

"  I  have  been  a  member  and  a  soldier  of  the  Catholic 
Church  for  half  a  century,  but  now  comes  an  Ecumeni 
cal  Council  which  I  do  not  acknowledge.  I  therefore 
separate  from  its  Communion.  To  contradict,  at  a 
single  stroke,  all  my  life,  and  deny  all  my  deepest 
convictions — do  you  blame  me  for  not  doing  that?" 

If  they  object  that  this  was  not  an  Ecumenical  Council 
since  it  was  not  free,  Gratry  replies  that  he  is  unable 
to  deny  its  validity,  and  therefore  he  must  submit  to 
its  decisions.  Then,  Gratry  asks  himself,  what  the 
great  historic  luminaries  of  the  Church  of  France, 
Fe*nelon  and  Bossuet,  would  have  done  under  the 
circumstances.  Had  Montalembert  survived,  he  would 
certainly  have  submitted,  as  his  own  words  prove : 
resolved,  come  what  may,  and  cost  what  it  may,  never 
to  transgress  the  inviolable  limits  of  unity.  But  what 
of  Gratry's  letters  ?  Strongly  worded  remonstrances 
had  reached  him  on  this.  How  could  he  cancel  his 
letters  and  their  unanswerable  demonstrations  ?  how 
contradict  himself?  how  overthrow  truths  which  he  has 
firmly  established,  and  re-establish  the  falsehoods  which 
he  has  overthrown?  To  this  difficult  enquiry  Gratry's 
answer  was : — 


xviii.]      THE  PROCESS  OF  SUBMISSION     299 

"I  mean  to  overthrow  none  of  the  truths  which  I 
may  have  established  in  these  letters.  I  mean  to  re 
store  no  falsehood  therein  denounced.  But  I  admit  that 
these  letters  may  contain  mistakes ;  and  that  it  is  those 
mistakes  which  I  mean  to  efface." 

A  distinguished  Bishop,  strongly  opposed  to  the  con 
tents  of  the  letters,  had  been  advising  him  that  he  could 
maintain  a  considerable  portion  of  his  letters.  All  that 
was  necessary  was  to  cancel  what  contradicted  the  Decree. 

Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  this  explanation  is  shorn 
of  all  the  reasoning  force  and  historic  cogency  of  the 
famous  letters?  If  words  have  any  meaning,  Gratry's 
entire  conception  of  Honorius,  and  the  attitude  of  the 
Councils  towards  him,  left  no  room  for  the  Vatican 
Dogma.  The  explanation  reveals  nothing  so  plainly 
as  profound  intellectual  perplexity. 

Gratry  also  wrote  an  explanatory  letter  to  M.  Legouve, 
a  colleague  in  the  French  Academy. 

"  I  opposed  inspired  Infallibility  ;  the  Council's  decree 
has  rejected  inspired  Infallibility.  I  opposed  personal 
Infallibility ;  the  Decree  affirms  official  Infallibility. 
Some  writers  of  the  School  which  I  consider  exaggerated 
did  not  wish  for  Infallibility  ex  cathedra,  which  seemed 
to  them  too  narrow  a  restriction :  the  Decree  affirms 
Infallibility  ex  cathedra.  I  almost  feared  a  scientific 
Infallibility,  a  political  and  governmental  Infallibility: 
but  the  Decree  only  affirms  doctrinal  Infallibility,  in 
matters  of  faith  and  morals. 

"All  this  does  not  mean  that  I  made  no  mistakes 
in  my  opposition.  Doubtless  I  have  made  mistakes, 
both  on  this  subject  and  on  others ;  but  as  soon  as 
I  recognise  my  error  I  cancel  it,  without  feeling 
thereby  humiliated." 

This  letter  was  not  printed  until  1907.  And  it 
appears  that  Gratry  wrote  still  further  explanations 


300  MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE       [CHAP. 

which  have  not  been  published  yet.  A  recently  printed 
letter  of  Charles  Perraud  contains  the  following  important 
postscript : — 

"  Father  Gratry  bids  me  say  that  he  has  just  finished 
a  little  work  in  which  he  explains  his  reasons  and 
above  all  the  limits  of  his  submission  to  the  Council's 
decree.  He  had  already  given  a  summary  of  these 
explanations  in  a  letter  to  M.  Legouve  (who  unhappily 
will  not  agree  to  publish  it,  I  cannot  imagine  why). 
I  was  not  with  Father  Gratry  when  he  sent  his  letter 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Paris.  I  regret  exceedingly 
that  he  began  with  that,  whereas  he  ought  to  have 
begun  by  publishing  the  writing  which  I  have  recently 
been  reading.  It  contains  definitions  and  distinctions 
of  very  great  significance,  especially  in  a  matter  where 
every  shade  of  meaning  has  its  distinctive  worth.  They 
are  altogether  mistaken  who  suppose  that  Father  Gratry 
has  treated  with  contempt  the  historic  evidence.  God 
give  him  time  to  say  on  this  matter  all  that  I  know 
he  desires  to  say." 

But  this  document,  without  which  the  complete  story 
of  Gratry's  submission  cannot  be  told,  has  never  been 
permitted  to  see  the  light.  For  whatever  reason, 
Adolphe  Perraud,  Gratry's  literary  executor  and 
biographer,  withheld  it  from  history. 

But  Gratry  did  not  long  survive  the  passing  of  the  new 
Decree.  "  And,"  says  his  biographer,  "  most  assuredly 
the  trials  of  this  period  shortened  his  days." l 


II.  AMONG   ENGLISH   SPEAKING   ROMANISTS 

Archbishop  Kenrick  of  St  Louis  represented  opposi 
tion  in  the  American  Church.  During  the  Council 
he  had  warmly  supported  Dupanloup  against  American 
Ultramontanes. 

1  Perraud,  p,  44- 


XVIIL]    THE   PROCESS   OF   SUBMISSION    301 

"  Many  among  us,"  he  wrote,1  "  believe  that  Ecclesi 
astical  history,  the  history  of  the  Popes,  the  history 
of  the  Councils,  and  the  Tradition  of  the  Church,  are 
not  in  harmony  with  the  new  doctrine.  Therefore  we 
think  it  most  inopportune  to  define  as  a  dogma  of 
faith  an  opinion  which  seems  to  us  a  novelty  in  the 
Church,  destitute  of  solid  foundation  in  Scripture  and 
Tradition,  and  contradicted  by  indisputable  evidence." 

In  his  speech  which  the  closure  of  June  prevented 
from  being  delivered,  but  which  he  printed2  and 
circulated,  he  was  more  emphatic  still. 

"  I  dare  to  affirm  that  the  opinion  as  expressed  in 
the  Schema  is  not  a  doctrine  of  the  faith,  and  never 
can  become  such  by  any  definition  even  of  a  Council." 

On  the  1 3th  of  July  Archbishop  Kenrick  voted  in 
the  negative,  signed  the  protest  of  the  I7th,  and  with 
the  body  of  the  opposition  fled  away.  Having  thus 
registered  his  informal  and  useless  protest  he  accepted 
the  new  Decree.  This  surrender  provoked  a  letter  from 
Lord  Acton  asking  the  Archbishop  for  the  grounds 
of  his  submission.  History  has  preserved  the  pages  of 
Kenrick's  reply.3  He  said  that  "sufficient  time  seems 
to  have  elapsed  to  allow  the  Catholic  world  to 
decide  whether  or  not  the  decree  of  the  Council  was 
to  be  accepted."  The  greater  number  of  the  Bishops, 
some  to  the  Archbishop's  surprise,  had  already  yielded 
assent.  As  for  himself — 

"  I  could  not  defend  the  Council  or  its  action ;  but 
I  always  professed  that  the  acceptance  of  either  by 
the  Church  would  supply  its  deficiency.  I  accord 
ingly  made  up  my  mind  to  submit  to  what  appeared 
inevitable,  unless  I  were  prepared  to  separate  myself 


1  Acta.)  p.  1375,  2nd  May  1870. 

2  Friedrich's  Documcnta^  p.  210. 

3  Schulte,  Der  Altkathfotsmus,  p.  267. 


302          MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE        [CHAP. 

at  least  in  the  judgment  of  most  Catholics  from  the 
Church." 

His  act  of  submission  "was  one  of  pure  obedience, 
and  was  not  grounded  on  the  removal  of  my  motives 
of  opposition  to  the  decrees,  as  referred  to  in  my 
speech,  and  set  forth  in  my  pamphlets."  He  hears 
from  Rome  that  the  Pope  requires  him  to  retract  his 
pamphlets.  "  This  I  shall  not  do,  no  matter  what  the 
consequences  may  be." 

For  intellectual  justification  in  this  submission  Kenrick 
appealed  to  Newman's  theory  of  Development.  If  it 
justified  Newman  in  becoming  a  Catholic,  "  I  thought 
that  it  might  justify  me  in  remaining  one."  To  this  the 
Archbishop  added  the  following  memorable  sentence : — 

"  Notwithstanding  my  submission,  I  shall  never  teach 
the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility  so  as  to  argue  from 
Scripture  or  Tradition  in  its  support,  and  shall  leave 
to  others  to  explain  its  compatibility  with  the  facts 
of  Ecclesiastical  history  to  which  I  referred  in  my  reply. 
As  long  as  I  may  be  permitted  to  remain  in  my  present 
station  I  shall  confine  myself  to  administrative  functions, 
which  I  can  do  the  more  easily  without  attracting 
attention,  as  for  some  few  years  past  I  have  seldom 
preached." 

His  whole  experience,  he  says,  has  taught  him  that 
there  can  be  no  liberty  in  any  future  sessions  of  the 
Council ;  and  this  is  warning  enough  to  Bishops  that 
they  must  not  handle  roughly  the  delicate  matters  on 
which  they  have  to  decide. 

The  records  of  intellectual  servitude  present  few  more 
painful  documents  than  this.  Whether  one  regards  the 
doctrine,  the  Archbishop,  or  the  facts  of  history,  such 
an  attitude  bristles  with  intellectual  if  not  moral  incon 
sistencies.  He  thinks  acceptance  by  the  Church  will 


xvin.]    THE   PROCESS   OF  SUBMISSION    303 

redeem  the  doctrine  from  conciliar  defects :  but  the 
essence  of  the  doctrine  is  Infallibility  apart  from  the 
Church's  consent.  As  Bishop  he  is  a  witness  to  the 
Faith :  yet  he  observes  in  silence,  and  registers  one  by 
one  the  submission  of  other  Bishops.  He  accepts  what 
he  will  not  proclaim,  and  cannot  defend.  Meanwhile, 
the  facts  of  history  continue,  as  before,  demonstrably 
irreconcilable  with  the  New  Decree.  The  sole  virtue 
by  which  everything  else  is  supposed  to  be  redeemed 
is  the  virtue  of  submission.  Theories  such  as  this  can 
only  exist  as  a  dark  background  to  enhance  the  moral 
and  spiritual  superiority  of  sincere  unbelief  and  genuine 
schism ;  or  to  warn  for  ever  against  the  disastrous 
consequences  which  follow  such  exercises  of  authority 
as  that  which  produced  the  Vatican  Decree. 


III.   AN   ITALIAN   INSTANCE 
Cardinal  Hohenlohe 

The  "Memoirs"  of  Prince  Hohenlohe  include  numerous 
confidential  letters  from  his  brother,  Cardinal  Hohenlohe, 
who  was  resident  in  Rome  during  the  Council  of  the 
Vatican.  The  Cardinal  had  no  sympathy  whatever 
with  the  attempt  to  elevate  the  theory  into  a  dogma 
of  the  Faith. 

His  repugnance  to  the  proceedings  at  the  Vatican 
took  also  a  practical  shape.  "  I  go  as  little  as  possible 
to  the  Meetings  of  the  Council,"  he  wrote ;  adding 
a  private  wish  that  the  Jesuits  might  stick  fast  in  the 
morass  of  their  operations.  Their  activities,  however, 
increased.  On  the  eve  of  the  great  Decision,  Cardinal 
Hohenlohe  wrote  the  following  remarkable  words : — 


304        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

"To-day  is  to  take  place  the  sitting  in  which  the 
Pope  will  proclaim  the  doctrine  of  Infallibility.  The 
Bishops  of  the  minority  are  leaving ;  some  of  them 
went  yesterday  evening,  among  others  the  Archbishop 
of  Munich ;  others  go  away  to-night.  They  will  not 
be  present  at  the  sitting,  and  have  sent  in  a  protest. 
I  am  not  very  well,  and  I,  too,  am  not  going  to  the 
sitting.  This  morning  I  wrote  a  few  lines  to  Cardinal 
Schwarzenberg,  which  I  here  transcribe,  of  course  in 
the  strictest  confidence,  because  they  make  clear  my 
sentiments.  .  .  .  *  If  on  the  question  of  Infallibility  I 
declare  myself  entirely  in  agreement  with  Cardoni l  I 
would  yet  have  voted  non  placet,  since  the  question 
is  not  opportune,  and  was  not  treated  conciliariter, 
and  I  will  have  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  guilt  of  this 
unhappy  measure,  which  has  caused  so  many  souls  to 
stumble  in  the  faith.  But  further,  the  Council  is  no 
longer  a  Council.  We  may  admit  that  it  was  convened 
legaliter,  but  from  the  moment  when  the  methodus  was 
imposed  upon  us,  the  conciliar  composition  of  this  un 
happy  assembly  was  at  an  end/ 

"  So  much  for  my  letter  to  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg. 
It  is  sad  enough  that  one  has  to  speak  so,  but  I  am 
pierced  in  the  innermost  depths  of  my  soul  with  such 
intense  pain,  that  I  could  hardly  bear  it  if  I  had  not 

the  consolation  of  the  Holy  Mass." 

\ 

Cardinal  Hohenlohe  says  that  he  had  been  taught 
to  believe  that  papal  decisions  ex  cathedra  were  infallible. 
What  is  clear  is  that  the  Council  contributed  nothing 
to  a  belief  which  he  held  as  a  theological  opinion,  and 
not  as  a  dogma  of  faith.  A  letter  from  the  Pope's 
private  secretary  expressed  regret  at  his  absence  from 
the  Decision  on  i8th  July.  Hohenlohe  replied  that  he 
had  always  believed  in  Infallibility. 

Quoting  this  reply,  in  a  letter  to  his  brother,  the 
Cardinal  added,  confidentially: — 

1  An  advocate  of  the  infallibilist  theory. 


XVIIL]    THE   PROCESS   OF  SUBMISSION    305 

"  There  is  nothing  here  about  the  Council  and 
dogmatic  constitution,  nor  did  I  even  write  that  to 
the  Pope,  but  only  to  Mgr.  Cenni  (the  private  secretary), 
without  in  the  least  instructing  him  to  communicate 
it  to  his  Holiness.  So  long  as  I  am  unconvinced  of 
the  validity  of  the  Council,  so  long  can  I  do  no  more, 
since  I  shall  yet  have  to  give  an  account  before  God, 
and  I  would  not  get  into  an  unpleasant  situation  there." 

Prince  Hohenlohe  was  not  less  discouraged  than  the 
Cardinal.  What  particularly  grieved  him  was  the  lack 
of  moral  courage  in  the  German  Bishops.  To  others 
and  to  himself  it  seemed  a 

"  disgraceful  apostasy  of  the  German  Bishops,  seeing  that 
after  they  had  pledged  themselves,  before  their  departure 
from  Rome,  to  decide  nothing  about  the  Dogma  of 
Infallibility  without  previously  taking  council  together, 
they  should  nevertheless  have  submitted  individually. 

"  When  one  views  the  moral  ruin,  the  complete  lack 
of  honour  among  the  Bishops,  one  shudders  at  the 
influence  which  the  Jesuitical  element  in  the  Church 
can  exert  on  human  nature." 

It  is  natural  to  enquire  what  overt  action  the 
advocates  of  these  views  and  its  sympathisers  in  the 
Roman  body  would  adopt.  The  excommunication  of 
Dollinger  roused  still  further  feeling ;  and  an  important 
meeting  of  political  opponents  of  things  ultramontane 
was  held  in  Berlin.  There  was  among  them  a  strong 
desire  for  action  of  some  kind,  and  for  emphatic  opposi 
tion.  But  Prince  Hohenlohe  disapproved. 

"  I  demonstrated,"  he  says,  "that  it  was  necessary  above 
all  things  for  us  to  remain  in  the  Catholic  Church.  So 
long  as  we  had  no  Bishops,  no  clergy,  and  no  congrega 
tions,  but  only  a  number  of  cultured  laymen,  we  could 
not  talk  of  an  old  Catholic  Church.  It  was  a  case  of 
waiting  till  the  Pope  should  die,-  and  then  there  was 

U 


306        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

hope  of  a  better  spirit  in  the  Catholic  Church.  If  we 
left  the  Church — and  this  might  be  the  result  of  any 
serious  step — the  Catholic  Church  would  lose  so  many 
reasonable  men  to  no  purpose."  It  was  therefore 
decided  to  remain  quiet.  "  I  do  not  think,"  Prince 
Hohenlohe  wrote,  "  that  the  agitation  will  produce  any 
great  results.  Interest  in  the  person  and  fate  of 
Dollinger,  for  it  is  nothing  more,  does  not  make  a 
reformation.  Interest  in  dogmatic  subtleties  no  longer 
exists." 

The  Prince  recorded  his  personal  convictions  in  the 
following  memorandum : — 

"  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  Concilium  Vaticanum  of 
1869-1870  is  in  no  way  ecumenical,  and  that  the  time 
will  come  when  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  proclaimed 
therein  will  be  pronounced  heresy.  But  as  the  Bishops 
collectively  and  almost  all  the  clergy  have  accepted 
the  doctrine  set  forth,  he  who  denies  the  doctrine  must 
secede  from  the  Catholic  Church.  ...  I  have,  there 
fore,  refrained  from  expressing  my  opinion  openly, 
especially  as  I  believe  that  the  Old  Catholic  Community 
cannot  remain  where  it  now  stands,  but  will  be  driven 
further.  ...  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  wish  the 
Catholic  Church  to  reform  herself.  That  can  and  will  be 
done  only  with  the  co-operation  of  her  Bishops.  This 
co-operation  will  not  take  place  until  the  moment  has 
come  for  the  assembling  of  a  really  Ecumenical  Council. 
Even  if  this  is  an  empty  hope,  it  in  no  case  alters 
my  present  opinion.  In  this  case  the  Catholic  Church 
is  doomed  to  fall,  and  then  other  forms  of  religion  will 
be  constituted,  which  we  need  not  now  discuss.  In  the 
meantime  I  have  this  hope,  and  therefore  am  waiting. 
Hence  I  remain  a  member  of  the  Church,  without  going 
over  to  the  Ultramontanes." 

IV.  IN   GERMANY 

I.  Hefele,  Bishop  of  Rottenburg,  formerly  Professor  of 
Theology  in  the  University  of  Tubingen,  and  learned, 


xviii.]    THE   PROCESS  OF    SUBMISSION    307 

perhaps  above  any  man  then  living,  in  the  Councils 
of  the  Church,  was  held  in  high  reputation  for  his 
history  of  the  Councils,  which  is  still  the  best  modern 
authority  on  the  subject.  He  was  well  known  as  the 
reverse  of  ultramontane.  Twelve  years  before  the 
Vatican  Council  assembled  he  stated  the  facts  about 
Pope  Honorius  in  such  a  manner  as  to  show  that  history 
absolutely  forbade  the  ascription  to  a  Pope  of  the 
attribute  of  Infallibility. 

Being  consecrated  Bishop  at  the  end  of  1869  he  had 
a  place  in  the  Vatican  Assembly,  where  he  was  most 
active  in  opposition.  Just  in  the  critical  hour  of  the 
Infallibility  debate  he  published  (in  April,  1870)  at 
Naples,  since  Papal  regulations  prevented  its  publica 
tion  in  Rome,  a  forcible  pamphlet  on  the  case  of  Pope 
Honorius,  and  his  treatment  by  the  Sixth  General 
Council.  Hefele  now  declared  that  Honorius  "  set 
aside  the  distinctively  orthodox  technical  term  for  the 
two  wills,  human  and  Divine,  in  Christ ;  sanctioned  the 
distinctively  technical  term  of  the  Monothelite  heresy ; 
and  commended  this  double  error  to  the  acceptance 
of  the  faithful."  Further,  he  maintained  that  the  sixth 
Ecumenical  Council  had  claimed  the  right  to  pass 
judgment  on  this  authoritative  Papal  decision,  and  to 
pass  anathema  upon  the  Pope  as  a  teacher  of  heresy. 
Finally,  he  maintained  that  from  the  fifth  to  the  eleventh 
century  each  Pope  in  his  consecration  oath  had  made  a 
declaration  which  involved  two  things :  first,  that  a 
Council  can  condemn  a  Pope  for  heresy,  and  secondly, 
that  Honorius  was  rightly  so  condemned  for  having 
supported  an  error  by  his  decree  on  faith. 

This  emphatic  rejection  of  Infallibility  was  circulated 
among  the  members  of  the  Council  in  Rome,  with 
intention  to  prevent  the  doctrine  from  being  decreed. 

Hefele  also  wrote    from    Rome  to   Dollinger,  com- 


308        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

plaining  that  the  majority  interfered  with  the  minority's 
freedom  of  speech ;  that  the  Pope's  personal  inter 
ventions  and  criticisms  on  the  minority  made  their 
independent  action  exceedingly  difficult ;  that  these 
experiences  were  diminishing  the  courage,  if  not  the 
numbers,  of  the  opposition  ;  that  it  was  difficult  to  know 
what  movement  to  take  when  a  halter  was  round  your 
neck ;  that  hardly  anybody  dared  openly  to  say  what 
their  ultimate  intentions  were  ;  that  the  majority  mean 
while  confidently  assured  them  that  the  Pope  would 
settle  everything,  and  that  then  the  alternative  would 
be  submission  or  excommunication. 

On  the  1 3th  of  July  Hefele  voted  in  the  negative, 
On  the  1 7th  he  signed  the  protest  and  then  returned  to 
his  diocese  without  waiting  for  the  Public  Session.  In 
a  letter  to  Dollinger  he  attempted  to  justify  this.  He 
said  that  from  the  number  of  negative  votes  on  the  I3th 
of  July  he  had  hoped  that  many  Bishops  would  remain 
for  a  final  protest  in  the  Public  Session  of  the  i8th. 
But  in  the  general  exodus  this  hope  evaporated.  He 
acknowledged  that  ^he  written  protest  sent  to  the  Pope 
was  weak,  because  destitute  of  formal  validity.  It  could 
not  possibly  avert  the  public  definition  of  the  Decree. 
As  for  himself  he  feels  that  his  duty  is  clear.  He 
has  been  in  consultation  with  his  Chapter  and  his 
Theological  Faculty.  He  cannot  accept  the  new  dogma, 
as  it  stands,  without  the  necessary  limitations.  He 
knows  that  Rome  may  suspend  him,  and  excommunicate 
him.  Meantime  he  has  been  urging  upon  another 
Bishop  that  disbelief  in  the  Council's  validity  is  not 
heretical.  His  own  line  consists  in  quiescence,  so  long 
as  Rome  does  not  actively  intervene.  What  else  to  do 
he  does  not  know  in  the  least.  At  any  rate  to  hold  as 
Divinely  revealed  what  is  not  true  is  for  him  simply 
impossible  (September  1870).  He  can  no  more  conceal 


XVIIL]     THE  PROCESS  OF  SUBMISSION     309 

/from  himself  in  Rottenburg,  than  he  could  in  Rome, 
that  the  new  dogma  is  destitute  of  any  true  rational, 
Scriptural,  or  traditional  foundations.  It  is  injurious  to 
the  Church  in  incalculable  ways.  The  Church  has 
suffered  no  severer  and  deadlier  wound  of  modern  times 
than  that  inflicted  on  the  i8th  of  July.  Yet  he  can  see 
no  way  of  escape.  He  writes  repeatedly  to  Dollinger  ; 
complains  that  Dupanloup  persists  in  asking  questions, 
but  will  not  say  what  he  intends  to  do.  Meanwhile, 
Hefele  is  being  worried  and  baited  on  every  side. 
Appeals  pour  in  from  France  and  America,  urging  sub 
mission.  He  is  certain  that  a  schism  would  have  no 

•  chance.  The  world  is  too  indifferent,  and  the  opposition 
too  dispersed.  There  is  nothing  for  it  but  submission, 
or  exclusion.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  him  indis 
putably  clear  that  the  final  session  of  the  Vatican 
Council  had  no  ecumenical  character.  Romanism  and 

j  Jesuitism  have  altered  the  nature  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  Hefele's  letters  become  still  more  piteous. 
His  troubles  are  increasing.  His  own  diocese  is  turning 
against  him.  He  had  not  believed  it  possible  that  the 
dogma  could  so  pervade  his  diocese.  Even  his  oldest 
friends  are  turning  against  him.  Rome  also  is  improv 
ing  the  occasion.  He  is  refused  the  usual  faculties,  so 
that  people  in  all  parts  of  the  diocese  cannot  get 
married,  and  the  local  clergy  are  utilising  this  to  set 
the  people  against  him.  What  on  earth  is  he  to  do? 
He  gives  way  to  lamentations.  The  position  of  a 
deprived  and  excommunicated  Bishop  is  to  him 
abhorrent — one  he  could  hardly  tolerate.  At  an  earlier 
stage  it  was  open  to  him  to  resign,  and  gladly  would  he 
lay  down  an  office  which  has  made  him  such  an 
oppressed  and  unhappy  man.  He  must  resign  or 
yield. 

Which  of  the  two  it  will  ultimately  be  it  is  not  by 


3io  MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE      [CHAP. 

this  time  difficult  to  predict.  Hefele  can  see  no  glimmer 
of  hope  in  any  distant  development.  It  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  the  Constitution  Pastor  Eternus  will  be 
revoked  by  a  future  Pope,  or  the  fourth  session  of  the 
Vatican  Council  pronounced  invalid.  The  utmost  that 
can  be  looked  for  is  a  further  explanation.  By  this  time 
he  is  the  only  German  Bishop  who  has  not  published 
the  Constitution.  He  cannot  adequately  express  his 
grief  that  Dollinger  should  see  no  escape  from  suspen 
sion  or  excommunication.  Is  there  no  compromise 
with  the  Archbishop  possible?  He  utters  wild  and 
useless  laments  over  the  Synod  of  German  Bishops  at 
Fulda.  Oh,  what  might  not  have  been  done  in  Germany 
if  only  the  Bishops  at  Fulda  had  stood  firm !  Yet 
he  took  no  steps  against  them.  Then  he  ends  with 
deploring  Dollinger's  own  impending  fate.  To  think 
that  Dollinger,  so  long  the  champion  of  the  Catholic 
Church  and  its  interests,  the  first  of  the  German  theo 
logians,  should  be  suspended  or  excommunicated  ;  and 
that  by  an  Archbishop  who  has  not  done  a  thousandth 
part  of  the  service  that  Dollinger  had  done !  That 
is  terrible !  The  conclusion  was  now  quite  plain. 

/Dollinger's  replies  were  useless,  and  Hefele  proceeded 

/   to  publish  the  Vatican  Decree. 

It  remained,  and  this  was  more  difficult,  to  revise  the 
case  of  Honorius  in  the  light  of  the  new  dogma.  In 
the  second  edition  of  his  "  History  of  the  Councils," 
Hefele  observes : 

"  We  always  were  of  the  opinion  that  Honorius  was 
quite  orthodox  in  thought,  but,  especially  in  his  first 
letter,  he  has  unhappily  expressed  himself  in  a  Mono- 
thelite  fashion."  This  opinion  he  still  retained,  "  even 
if  ...  as  a  result  of  repeated  new  investigation  of  this 
subject,  and  having  regard  to  what  others  have  more 
recently  written  in  defence  of  Pope  Honorius,  I  now 


XVIIL]     THE  PROCESS  OF  SUBMISSION     311 

modify  or  abandon  many  details  of  my  earlier  state 
ments,  or  in  particular,  form  a  milder  judgment  of  the 
first  letter  of  Honorius." 

Still,  even  now,  his  historic  sense  constrains  him  to 
speak  of  the  "  the  unhappy  sentence,  '  accordingly  we 
acknowledge  one  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ/  which 
taken  literally  is  quite  Monothelite."  Still  he  is  con 
strained  to  say,  "  Honorius  ought  to  have  answered." 
And  as  for  the  Monothelites  themselves,  "  the  fact  that 
the  Pope  gave  utterance  to  this  their  primary  proposi 
tion  must  have  given  essential  assistance  to  their  cause." 

2.  Melchers,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  professed  him 
self  in  the  Council  ready  to  accept  the  dogma  as  a 
personal  belief;  but  he  accumulated  many  arguments 
to  show  the  extreme  unwisdom  of  enforcing  it  upon 
the  Church,  especially  in  the  existing  state  of  sharply- 
divided  opinion.     On  the  critical  I3th  of  July  he  gave  a 
conditional  vote.     His  own  subsequent  compliance  was, 
therefore,  comparatively  easy.     It  was  entirely  another 
matter  to  restore  unity  to  his   diocese.1     Back  in  his 
diocese    he    called    the    German    Bishops    together   at 
Fulda.     Only   nine   arrived,  but   they  agreed   to   take 
measures  to  impose  the  doctrine  upon  the  recalcitrant. 
It   became    the    Archbishop's    function   to   reduce    to 
submission   the   Theological   Faculty  of  Bonn,  among 
others  the  distinguished  professors,  Langen  and  Reusch. 

3.  The  interview  between  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne 
and  Professor  Reusch  has  been  recorded. 

The  Archbishop  told  the  Professor  that  the  highest 
authority  had  spoken,  and  submission  was  his  duty. 
The  Professor  replied  that  his  convictions  would  not 
allow  it.  The  Archbishop  retorted  that  he  laid  too 
much  stress  on  his  convictions.  Reusch  replied  that  he 

1  See  pp.  241,  242. 


312          MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE        [CHAP. 

dared  not  go  against  them.  The  Archbishop  restated 
the  duty  of  submission  to  authority  ;  the  Professor  said 
that  he  could  only  leave  his  convictions  to  the  judg 
ment  of  God. 

But,  persisted  the  Archbishop,  the  Council  was  free 
and  ecumenical,  and  the  definition  unquestionably  valid. 
He  acknowledged  that  he  had  himself  implored  the 
Pope  not  to  allow  the  discussion  to  begin  ;  but  the 
majority  thought  otherwise.  And,  added  the  Arch 
bishop,  with  a  happy  inspiration,  you  know  that  the 
doctrine  has  been  recently  taught  in  the  Catechism  of 
this  diocese.  Until  now,  replied  Reusch,  the  opposite 
doctrine  has  been  taught  in  all  the  schools,  in  a  book 
bearing  the  episcopal  imprimatur.  The  Archbishop 
could  only  reply  that  the  book  would  be  altered  now, 
and  that  its  author  had  already  conformed.  But, 
objected  the  Professor,  if  the  opposite  has  been  taught 
up  to  the  1 8th  of  last  July,  it  cannot  be  a  heresy. 

The  Archbishop  could  only  enquire  whether  the 
Professor  would  make  any  concession  of  any  kind.  He 
said  he  would  avoid  contradiction,  and  study  further. 
The  Archbishop  pointed  out  that  Rome  would  never 
be  satisfied  with  that.  Do  you  wish,  he  asked,  to  die 
without  the  Sacraments  ?  The  interview  was  adjourned, 
and  then  resumed,  but  fruitlessly.  The  Archbishop 
recommended  him  to  go  into  retreat.  The  Professor 
doubted  whether  this  could  alter  facts  of  history.  His 
reward  was  excommunication. 

Reusch's  reflections  on  the  interview  with  his  Arch 
bishop  show  what  resistance  cost  him.  "  How  painful  it 
was,  he  wrote,  although  I  continued  calm  and  the  Arch 
bishop  always  friendly,  you  can  well  imagine.  But  I 
formed  a  gloomier  opinion  of  his  narrow-mindedness 
than  ever  before."  Melcher's  insistence  on  the  duty  of 
unlimited  intellectual  submission  left,  so  far  as  Reusch 


xviii.]  REFUSALS  TO  SUBMIT  313 

could  see,  no  room  for  reason.  It  provoked  the  criticism 
that  the  Archbishop  would  credit  four  Persons  to  the 
Trinity  if  a  papal  constitution  demanded  it.  But  for 
himself,  Reusch  wrote  in  terms  almost  of  despair.  That 
he  might  no  longer  pursue  his  mission  as  a  teacher  was 
hard  enough.  That  he  might  no  more  discharge  his 
priestly  functions,  nor  obtain  absolution  and  communion 
was  terrible.  But  yet  he  would  be  more  unhappy  still 
if  these  had  been  obtained  at  the  price  of  assenting  to 
the  dogma.  And  Reusch  uttered  his  grief  in  the  words 
of  Ecclesiastes : — 

"  Wherefore  I  praised  the  dead  which  are  already 
dead  more  than  the  living  which  are  yet  alive.  Yea, 
better  is  he  than  both  they,  which  hath  not  yet  been, 
who  hath  not  seen  the  evil  work  that  is  done  under 
the  sun." 

There  remained,  however,  a  work  for  Reusch  to  do. 
He  found  within  the  old  Catholic  communion  a  freedom 
to  retain  unaltered  the  faith  which,  up  to  that  year,  he 
had  taught  within  the  communion  of  Rome. 

4.  The  fate  of  Langen,  Theological  Professor  of 
Bonn,  was  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  Reusch.  When 
asked  for  his  assent  to  the  new  Decree,  Langen  con 
tended  that  the  University  statutes  secured  him  his 
office  conditionally  on  assent  to  the  decisions  of  Trent ; 
and  that  no  alteration  of  these  conditions  could  be 
made  without  approval  of  the  Government.  The  Arch 
bishop  overruled  this  contention,  and  Langen  declined 
to  submit.  Like  Reusch,  he  was  excommunicated. 
Langen  has  left  behind  him  a  history  of  the  Roman 
See,  and  an  extremely  learned  and  exhaustive  history 
of  interpretation  of  the  Scripture-texts  usually  adduced 
in  behalf  of  the  papal  claims.  Both  these  works  display 
that  Langen  could  not  accept  the  new  definition  with 
out  falsifying  the  facts  of  history. 


314        MINORITY  AFTER  DECREE          [CHAP. 

5.  Another  German  rejection  of  the  doctrine  is  that  of 
Dr  Hasenclever.1 

"  With  countless  other  companions  in  faith  I  find 
myself  reduced  by  the  Papal  Decree  of  i8th  July  1870 
to  the  alternative  of  either  denying  against  my 
conscience  the  ancient  faith  as  I  received  it,  and  on 
the  basis  of  which  I  have  remained  for  five  and  twenty 
years  in  the  Catholic  Church,  or  of  placing  myself  in 
hopeless  antagonism  to  a  justly  revered  authority 
through  refusal  to  submit." 

Undoubtedly  the  principle  is  true  that  when  the 
Church  has  once  spoken  all  uncertainty  is  taken  away ; 
but  no  less  undoubted  is  the  principle  that  where  a 
contradiction  exists,  a  manifest  deviation  from  tradition, 
it  is  impossible  that  it  is  the  Church  which  has  spoken. 
It  is  impossible,  he  says,  for  him  to  bring  into  harmony 
the  new  teaching  on  the  Pope's  Infallibility  with  the 
Catholic  Faith  taught  him  by  the  Tridentine  and  Roman 
Catechism. 

The  constitution  of  the  Church,  he  argued,  differs 
from  that  of  a  State,  for  while  the  latter  may  assume 
at  various  periods  a  democratic,  an  aristocratic,  a 
monarchical  form — the  former  must  maintain  its  self- 
identity.  This  principle  of  identity  and  continuity  is, 
he  acknowledges,  recognised  in  the  Anglican  Church 
which,  while  uncertain  of  the  validity  of  its  claims,  he 
admits,  is  thereby  distinguished  from  the  Protestant 
types.  But  his  sympathies  are  with  the  principle  that 
the  constitution  of  the  Church  cannot  change  its  form. 
He  is  as  opposed  to  a  spiritual  dictatorship  as  to 
Protestantism  itself.  Is  it  possible  that  the  conception 
of  supreme  authority  in  the  Church  which  has  held 
good  for  eighteen  hundred  years,  is  no  longer  decisive  ? 
So  men  enquired  in  amazement  when  the  news  of  the 

1  1872, 


xviii.]  REFUSALS   TO  SUBMIT  315 

schemes  of  the  Roman  Curia  began  to  circulate.  That 
some  reforms  should  be  necessary  was  natural  enough  ; 
but  that  a  radical  change  must  be  made  in  the  constitu 
tion  of  the  supreme  teaching  body — this  was  incredible 
even  to  many  of  the  blindest  followers  of  the  Curia. 
The  Church  has  never  exhibited  a  trace  of  uncertainty 
on  the  method  of  securing  finality  in  a  question  of  faith. 
It  has  been  through  the  Collective  Episcopate  united  with 
its  chief.  In  the  Collective  Episcopate  as  representative 
of  Christendom  at  large,  the  Church  has  acknowledged 
the  apostolic  teaching  office,  the  witness  to  its  faith,  the 
judge  of  error.  The  mission  of  a  Universal  Council  is 
to  give  collective  testimony  to  the  faith  of  the  Fathers. 
This  collective  testimony  might  be  voiced  through  the 
Holy  See,  but  it  is  impossible  to  discover  in  Revelation 
a  basis  for  the  theory  that  the  collective  testimony  is 
not  valid  until  the  Holy  See  endorses  it.  The  ancient 
principle  is  to  rest  in  the  testimony  of  all  churches  : — 

"  Ecumenical  Councils,"  says  Alzog,  speaking  of  the 
early  centuries,  "  the  real  representatives  of  the  Catholic 
spirit,  were  in  these  ages  of  burning  controversy  the 
decisive  authority,  the  supreme  tribunal  which  ended 
all  dogmatic  disputes.  And,"  adds  Hasenclever,  "it 
was  exactly  when  this  principle  became  challenged  by 
another  that  the  risk  of  schism  appeared." 

Moreover,  a  mathematical  formula  may  illustrate  the 
effect  of  the  papal  claim  on  the  Episcopate.  If  a  +  b  =  a 
then  b  —  o\  or,  at  any  rate,  is  a  practically  negligible 
quantity. 

Hasenclever  complains  that  he  can  nowhere  obtain  a 
direct  reponse  to  the  question,  How  is  it  that  innumer 
able  treatises  and  works  of  all  kinds  approved  by  the 
Church  have  hitherto  affirmed  that  Papal  Infallibility  is 
no  part  of  the  Catholic  Faith  ?  What  particularly 


316         MINORITY   AFTER  DECREE         [CHAP. 

scandalised  him  was  the  sudden  condemnation,  by 
placing  on  the  Index,  books  which  have  been  for  a 
considerable  period  accepted  authorities  within  the 
Church.  He  failed  to  see  that  to  bestow  sanction 
publicly  upon  a  treatise,  and  afterwards  to  pronounce  it 
heretical,  was  consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  an 
unchanged  faith.  Moreover,  if  Papal  Infallibility  had 
been  the  traditional  principle,  the  entire  history  of  the 
Church  must  have  presented  a  very  different  apearance 
from  what  it  does.  Where,  he  asks,  is  any  faith  in 
an  infallible  Pope  exhibited  in  the  Church  during  the 
Arian  struggles?  Certainly  the  Bishops  of  the  Sixth 
Ecumenical  Council  conducted  matters  on  somewhat 
different  lines  from  those  suggested  to  us  by  infalli- 
bilists  to-day.  They  treated  the  Pope  Honorius  just 
as  they  would  have  treated  any  other  heretic.  And 
his  successors  did  the  same.  The  infallibilist  falls 
into  Scylla  if  he  escapes  Charybdis.  When  entreated 
to  make  a  sacrifice  of  his  intellect  to  this  demand  of 
the  Vatican  Decree,  Hasenclever  can  only  reply  that 
such  sacrifice  paralyses  the  innermost  depths  of  personal 
existence.  To  him  it  is  nothing  less  than  a  suicidal 
suppression  of  that  characteristic  which  raises  us  into 
resemblance  to  God.  Those  who  cannot  bring  them 
selves  to  this  abandonment  of  their  human  dignity 
will  be  constrained  to  say,  in  spite  of  all  the  seductions 
of  superficial  and  sophistic  reasonings,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  personal  infallibility  of  the  Pope  stands  in  irre 
concilable  contradiction  with  the  actual  faith  of  the 
Catholic  Church  ;  and,  accordingly,  it  is  impossible  that 
a  real  Ecumenical  Council  should  have  decreed  it. 

6.  But  these  were  minor  incidents.  The  religious  atten 
tion  of  Germany  centred  on  Dollinger  at  Munich.  On 
1 7th  July  Archbishop  Scherr  of  Munich  left  Rome  with 
the  minority.  On  the  i8th  the  new  dogma  was  pro- 


xviii.]  REFUSALS   TO  SUBMIT  317 

claimed.  On  the  igth  Archbishop  Scherr  was  back  in 
Munich  again.  On  the  2ist  the  Theological  Faculty, 
headed  by  Dollinger,  met  him.  Scherr's  criticisms 
of  the  Roman  precedure,  says  Dollinger's  German 
biographer,  Friedrich,  confirmed  them  in  the  views  of 
the  Council  which  they  had  already  taken.  But,  said 
Scherr,  Rome  has  spoken.  There  was  nothing  for  it 
but  submission.  The  Theological  Faculty  were  totally 
unprepared  for  the  Archbishop's  surrender.  Upon 
Dollinger  it  created  the  most  painful  impression.  He 
knew  that  the  Archbishop's  convictions,  better  judgments, 
sympathies,  were  all  on  the  other  side ;  and  that,  like 
the  other  Bishops  of  the  minority,  he  had  abandoned 
the  Council  because  he  could  neither  bring  himself 
to  acquiesce  silently  in  the  proclamation  of  what  he 
deprecated,  nor  summon  courage  to  protest  for  what 
he  had  hitherto  believed.  The  feebleness  of  the  Arch 
bishop's  excuses,  the  frank  condemnation  pronounced  by 
him  on  the  methods  by  which  the  result  had  been 
secured,  only  set  in  stronger  light  the  incongruity  of  his 
submission.  Naturally  they  served  to  confirm  Dollinger 
still  more  in  his  opinion  of  the  absence  of  real  freedom 
in  the  Council  Chamber  at  St  Peter's. 

Dr  Liddon,  who  was  in  Munich  on  29th  July,  gave 
the  following  account  of  Dollinger  some  ten  days  after 
the  passing  of  the  Decree  : — 

"  A  large  amount  of  our  conversation,  of  course, 
turned  on  the  Council  and  the  Definition ;  and  he 
speaks  with  the  most  entire  unreserve.  He  says  that 
the  great  danger  now  is  lest  the  Bishops  of  the  minority, 
being  separated  from  each  other,  and  exposed  to  the 
powerful  influences  which  can  be  brought  to  bear  on 
them,  should  gradually  acquiesce.  Nothing  would  be 
worse  for  the  cause  of  the  Church  in  Germany  than 
the  spectacle  of  such  submission  to  a  purely  external 
and  not  really  competent  authority  (he  dwells  much 


3i8        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

on  the  scheme  de  concilia,  as  completely  destroying  the 
freedom,  and  so  the  authority,  of  the  Council),  with 
a  notorious  absence  of  any  internal  assent.  The  Arch 
bishop  of  Munich  is  very  anxious.  He  told  Dr  Dollinger 
that  the  deputation  which  went  to  the  Pope,  begging 
him  to  spare  the  Church,  nearly  carried  its  point." 

It  is  clear  from  this  and  other  sources  that  the  Arch 
bishop  of  Munich,  if  left  to  himself,  had  no  desire  to 
proceed  to  extremities  with  the  opponents  of  the  Decree. 
But  Dollinger  fully  realised,  ever  since  the  first  mention 
of  Infallibility  as  a  subject  for  decision,  that  excom 
munication  lay  before  him  if  the  Decree  was  passed. 
Archbishop  Scherr  found  himself  reluctantly  driven  to 
the  painful  task  of  imposing  on  the  theologians  a 
reversal  of  belief  similar  to  that  which  he  had  himself 
undergone.  Rome  was  determined  that  the  Munich 
stronghold  of  the  minority  should  be  brought  into 
line  with  the  new  Decree.  The  Archbishop  was  made 
the  instrument  for  effecting  this.  He  wrote  a  letter  to 
the  Munich  Faculty  of  Theology,  in  which  he  said  that 
harassing  doubts  widely  prevailed  as  to  the  attitude 
which  the  Theological  Faculty  meant  to  adopt  toward 
the  Vatican  Council.  It  was  his  duty  as  Archbishop  to 
set  these  doubts  at  rest.  As  for  himself,  he  frankly 
owned  that,  during  the  deliberation  at  Rome,  he  gave 
utterance  to  his  own  opinion  with  all  the  positiveness  of 
a  conviction  attained  after  mature  consideration.  "  But," 
he  added,  "  I  never  intended  to  retain  this  conviction  of 
mine  if  the  decision  should  turn  out  differently."  Accord 
ingly  he  invites  the  Theological  Faculty  to  follow  suit. 
The  faculty,  as  a  body,  complied.  But  neither  Friedrich 
nor  Dollinger.  The  Archbishop  waited  two  months. 
Then  he  wrote  entreating  Dollinger  to  conform.  To 
this  Dollinger  replied  that  assent  to  the  recent  Decree 
would  require  him  to  refute  his  lifelong  historical  teaching. 


XVIIL]  REFUSALS   TO  SUBMIT  319 

He  would  have  to  declare  that  his  doctrine  hitherto  was 
false  and  perverted.  In  the  face  of  his  public  declarations 
no  one  would  believe  in  the  sincerity  of  his  submission. 
All  the  world  would  consider  the  transition  a  hypo 
critical  instance  of  convictions  denied  from  fear  and 
personal  interest.  In  the  terribly  painful  situation  into 
which  recent  events  had  brought  him,  Dollinger  asked 
for  further  delay.  This  was  granted,  but,  of  course,  to 
no  purpose.  Just  in  this  hour  of  critical  suspense,  when 
the  decisive  step  must  be  taken,  came  the  piteous  appeal 
from  Hefele.  Was  no  compromise  with  the  Arch 
bishop  possible?  That  Dollinger,  the  first  of  German 
theologians,  should  be  suspended  or  even  excom 
municated  ;  and  that  by  an  Archbishop  who  had  not 
done  a  thousandth  part  of  the  service  Dollinger  had 
rendered  to  the  Church !  This  was  terrible.  Hefele's 
letter  gave  Dollinger  what  he  calls  the  first  completely 
sleepless  night  in  his  life.  But  it  could  not  alter  his 
convictions.  Dollinger  sent  his  answer  in  to  the  Arch 
bishop.  He  took  his  definite  and  final  stand  on  the 
ancient  principles.  He  could  do  no  other.  Dollinger 
said,  in  his  reply,  that  the  Jesuits,  in  advancing  their 
scheme  of  papal  absolutism,  assured  their  adherents 
and  disciples,  and  convinced  many,  even  Bishops,  that 
the  noblest  Christian  heroism  consists  in  the  sacrifice 
of  the  intellect,  and  in  surrendering  one's  mental  judg 
ment  and  self-acquired  knowledge  and  power  of  dis 
cernment  to  an  infallible  papal  magisterium  as  the 
only  sure  source  of  religious  knowledge.  This,  in  his 
opinion,  was  to  elevate  mental  sloth  to  the  dignity  of  a 
meritorious  sacrifice,  and  to  renounce  the  rights  and 
the  claims  of  history. 

The  question  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  an  historical 
question,  which  must  be  tested  by  historical  investiga 
tion  ;  by  the  patient  scrutiny  of  facts  in  the  centuries 


320        MINORITY   AFTER    DECREE         [CHAP. 

past.  If  this  doctrine  were  true,  it  would  assuredly  be 
not  merely  one  truth  among  many,  but  the  actual 
foundation  of  the  rest.  How  could  the  basal  principle 
have  been  obscured  through  centuries? 

"We  are  still,"  wrote  Dollinger  to  the  Archbishop, 
"waiting  the  explanation  how  it  is  that,  until  1,830  years 
had  passed,  the  Church  did  not  formulate  into  an  article 
of  faith  a  doctrine  which  the  Pope,  in  a  letter  addressed 
to  your  Grace,  calls  the  very  foundation  principle  of 
Catholic  faith  and  doctrine  ?  How  has  it  been  possible 
that  for  centuries  the  Popes  have  overlooked  the  denial 
of  this  fundamental  article  of  faith  by  whole  countries 
and  in  whole  theological  schools  ?  And  was  there  a 
unity  of  the  Church  when  there  was  a  difference  in 
the  very  fundamentals  of  belief?  And — may  I  further 
add — how  is  it  then  that  your  Grace  yourself  resisted 
so  long  and  so  persistently  the  proclamation  of  this 
dogma  ?  You  answer,  because  it  was  not  opportune. 
But  can  it  ever  be  '  inopportune '  to  give  believers  the 
key  to  the  whole  building  of  faith,  to  proclaim  the 
fundamental  article  on  which  all  others  depend  ?  Are 
we  not  now  all  standing  before  a  dizzy  abyss  which 
opened  itself  before  our  eyes  on  the  i8th  July?" 
Dollinger  concluded  with  a  deliberate  and  emphatic 
rejection  of  the  new  Decree :  "  As  a  Christian,  as  a 
theologian,  as  a  historian,  as  a  citizen,  I  cannot  accept 
this  doctrine." 

Dollinger's  biographer  assures  us  that  this  reply  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Munich  brought  Dollinger  hundreds 
of  letters,  telegrams,  addresses  from  Germany,  Austria, 
and  Italy,  in  congratulation  for  his  firmness  and  strength. 
The  Archbishop  was  in  great  perplexity.  He  sent  a 
telegram  to  Rome  asking  what  his  next  move  should 
be.  Antonelli  replied  promptly  and  curtly  that  the 
whole  affair  was  exclusively  within  the  Archbishop's 
jurisdiction.  This  cut  off  all  delay  and  all  retreat. 


xvin.]  REFUSALS   TO  SUBMIT  321 

Archbishop  Scherr  was  thus  driven  forward  from  Rome, 
and  reluctantly  forced  to  take  the  final  step.  A  pro 
test  signed  by  forty-three  Catholic  professors  against 
episcopal  tyranny  was  naturally  without  effect.  So  also 
was  an  appeal  with  many  thousands  of  signatures. 
Theological  students  in  Munich  diocese  were  now 
forbidden  to  attend  his  lectures  ;  and  he  was  informed 
that  although  the  Archbishop  could  not  prevent  his 
lecturing,  yet  he  could  only  continue  to  do  so  in  open 
opposition  to  his  Bishop.  This  was  followed  a  fortnight 
later  by  his  formal  excommunication,  in  which  his 
biographer,  Friedrich,  was  included.1 

The  exasperation  at  Munich  is  shown  in  a  strongly 
worded  protest2  issued  at  Whitsuntide  1871,  in  which 
the  signatories  declare  themselves  confirmed  in  refusing 
the  Vatican  Decree  by  the  duty,  which  neither  Popes 
nor  Bishops  can  dispute,  of  abiding  in  loyalty  to  the 
ancient  faith  even  though  an  angel  should  teach  them 
otherwise.  It  has  been  hitherto  no  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  no  part  of  Catholic  faith,  that  every  Christian 
possesses  in  the  Pope  an  absolute  overlord  and  master, 
to  whom  he  is  directly  and  immediately  subjected,  and 
whose  decisions  in  faith  and  morals  he  is  bound  under 
penalty  of  eternal  damnation  to  obey.  It  is  notoriously 
no  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  Church  hitherto  that  the 
gift  of  Infallibility  is  entrusted  to  one  individual.  Peter 
speaks  unmistakably  to  us  in  Scriptures  through  his 
deeds  and  his  words  and  his  letters;  but  all  these  breathe 
a  totally  different  spirit  from  that  of  papal  absolutism. 
The  German  minority  Bishops  show  their  bewilder 
ment  in  their  Pastoral  letters.  For  none  of  them  can 
induce  themselves  to  follow  Manning  and  the  Jesuits 
in  interpreting  the  Decrees  in  their  natural  obvious 

1  I7th  April  1871.     See  Declarations,  p.  113. 

2  Von  Schulte,  Der  Altkatholicismusy  pp.  16-22. 


322         MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

meaning.  Moreover,  the  undersigned  deplored  that  the 
Bishops  are  not  ashamed  to  answer  the  conscientious 
outcry  of  their  own  dioceses  with  invectives  against 
reason  and  learning.  In  previous  centuries,  when 
Bishops  resorted  to  excluding  a  man  from  the  Church, 
they  did  so  on  the  ground  of  the  novelty  and  untradi- 
tional  character  of  his  teaching.  It  was  reserved  for 
the  present  generation  to  see,  what  eighteen  centuries 
have  never  beheld,  a  man  condemned  and  excluded 
precisely  because  he  clings  to  a  doctrine  which  his 
fathers  in  the  Church  have  taught  him ;  refuses  to 
change  his  faith  as  a  cloak  might  be  exchanged.  That 
an  unjust  excommunication  can  only  injure  its  inflicters — 
not  the  individual  upon  whom  it  is  inflicted — is  the 
universal  teaching  of  the  Fathers.  Such  excommuni 
cations  are  as  invalid  and  ineffective  as  they  are  unjust. 
They  cannot  deprive  the  believer  of  the  means  of  grace, 
nor  a  priest  of  his  right  to  dispense  them. 

Such  was  the  strain  in  which  the  Munich  protest  was 
written.  Among  the  signatures  which  follow  are  those 
of  Dollinger,  Lord  Acton,  and  Reinkens,  afterwards 
Bishop  of  the  Old  Catholic  Communion.  The  German 
Catholics,  whom  the  Decree  of  Infallibility  had  excluded, 
gathered  to  form  the  Old  Catholic  Community. 

Dollinger  confesses  that  he  had  no  hope  whatever 
that  under  the  next  or  one  of  the  next  Popes  any 
important  or  essential  change  would  be  made  for  the 
better,  since  the  order  of  the  Jesuits  formed  the  soul  and 
sovereign  of  the  whole  Roman  Church.  Formerly  there 
were  counterbalancing  influences :  powerful  religious 
orders,  full  of  vitality,  correcting  the  tendencies  of  the 
followers  of  Loyola.  But  these  had  become  either 
powerless  shadows,  or  satellites  of  the  Jesuit  dominating 
body. 


xvm.]  REFUSALS   TO   SUBMIT  323 

"The  tendency  of  events  since  1870  was  shown,"  said 
Dollinger,  "in  the  solemn  proclamation  of  Liguori  as 
Doctor  of  the  Church : — - 

"  A  man  whose  false  morals,  perverse  worship  of  the 
Virgin,  constant  use  of  the  grossest  fables  and  forgeries, 
make  his  writings  a  storehouse  of  errors  and  falsehoods. 
In  the  whole  range  of  Church  history  I  do  not  know 
a  single  example  of  such  a  terrible  and  pernicious  con 
fusion." 

The  public  papers  repeatedly  announced  Dr 
Dollinger's  reconciliation  with  the  Roman  Communion. 
On  one  occasion  he  replied  : — 

"  This  is  now  the  fourteenth  time  that  my  submission 
has  been  announced  by  Ultramontane  papers ;  and  it 
will  often  occur  again.  Rest  assured  that  I  shall  not 
dishonour  my  old  age  with  a  lie  before  God  and  man." 

Ten  years  after  the  Vatican  Decision,  Dollinger 
received  a  pathetic,  imploring  appeal  from  a  lady  of 
high  social  position,  entreating  him  to  rescue  himself 
from  the  everlasting  destruction  which  his  exclusion 
would  entail,  and  to  have  mercy  on  his  own  unhappy 
soul. 

Dollinger's  answer  is  memorable:  — 

"  I  am  now  in  my  eighty- first  year,  and  was  a  public 
teacher  of  theology  for  forty-seven  years,  during  which 
long  period  no  censure,  nor  even  a  challenge  that  I 
should  defend  myself,  or  make  a  better  explanation, 
has  ever  reached  me  from  ecclesiastical  dignitaries, 
either  at  home  or  abroad.  I  had  never  taught  the 
new  Articles  of  Faith  advanced  by  Pius  IX.  and  his 
Council.  .  .  .  Then  came  the  fatal  year,  1870.  ...  It 
was  in  vain  that  I  begged  them  to  let  me  remain 
by  the  faith  and  confession  to  which  I  had  hitherto 
been  faithful  without  blame  and  without  contradiction. 
Yesterday  still  orthodox,  I  was  to-day  a  heretic  worthy 
of  excommunication  ;  not  because  I  had  changed  my 


324         MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

teaching,  but  because  others  had  considered  it  advisable 
to  undertake  the  alteration,  and  to  make  opinions  into 
Articles  of  Faith." 

But  why  not  make  a  sacrifice  of  his  intellect : — 

"  Because,"  says  Dollinger,  "  if  I  did  so  in  a  question 
which  is  for  the  historical  eye  perfectly  clear  and  un 
ambiguous,  there  would  then  be  no  longer  for  me  any 
such  thing  as  historical  truth  and  certainty  ;  I  should 
then  have  to  suppose  that  my  whole  life  long  I  had  been 
in  a  world  of  dizzy  illusion,  and  that  in  historical  matters 
I  am  altogether  incapable  of  distinguishing  truth  from 
fable  and  falsehood." 

But  this  would  undermine  his  whole  confidence  in 
historic  fact,  and  thereby  shatter  the  foundation  of  his 
religion.  For  it  is  on  historic  facts  that  Christianity 
itself  reposes.  Prior  to  the  historic  problem  of  the 
Papacy  is  the  historic  problem  of  the  Apostolic  times. 
"  I  must  first  be  convinced  that  the  principal  events 
narrated  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
are  essentially  true  and  inviolable."  And  to  destroy 
confidence  in  historic  judgment  in  one  case  is  to  ruin 
its  validity  in  all  others. 

Archbishop  Scherr  was  succeeded  in  the  diocese  of 
Munich  in  1878  by  Von  Steichele,  a  former  pupil  of 
Dollinger,  and  attached  to  him  by  feelings  of  the  deepest 
veneration.  Von  Steichele  made  overtures  for  Dollinger's 
reconciliation  with  the  Papacy.  He  wrote  in  1879  a 
delightful  letter  :— 

"With  the  thankfulness  of  a  pupil  to  a  venerable 
teacher  ;  with  the  respect  of  a  disciple  for  the  honoured 
bearer  of  the  richest  knowledge ;  with  the  love  of  an 
anxious  Bishop  for  the  brother  who  unhappily  is 
not  yet  at  one  with  him  in  things  of  highest  moment." 


xvin.]  REFUSALS  TO  SUBMIT  325 

Dollinger  sent  a  frank  but  decided  reply.  Return 
was  impossible.  He  said  that  his  excommunication  had 
been  unjust,  his  treatment  unexampled  in  the  history 
of  the  Church.  The  mediaeval  theory  of  excommunica 
tion  rendered  the  individual  liable  to  bodily  harm. 
It  would  appear  that  this  theory  was  not  obsolete ; 
for  the  chief  of  the  police  had  warned  him  to  be  on 
his  guard,  as  they  had  knowledge  that  an  act  of  violence 
was  plotted  against  him.  Friedrich  says  elsewhere  that 
the  house  in  which  he  and  Dollinger  lived,  was  specially 
protected  by  the  police  for  a  year  after  the  excommuni 
cation.  These  dangers,  said  Dollinger,  were  long  since 
past.  But  he  could  not  enter  again  into  relationship 
with  the  authors  of  these  actions.  He  had  long  ago 
challenged  his  former  colleagues  to  know  how  they 
reconciled  acceptance  of  the  Vatican  expositions  with 
their  conscience  and  their  knowledge  of  the  facts  : — 

"  The  answer  was  always  an  evasive  one,  or  an  em 
barrassed  shrug  of  the  shoulder.  They  said  that  this 
was  a  question  of  detail,  which  the  individual  priest  or 
layman  did  not  need  to  enter  into.  Or  they  said  that 
the  very  essence  and  merit  of  believing  consisted 
precisely  in  giving  oneself  up  blindly  and  implicitly 
to  the  powers  that  be,  and  in  leaving  it  to  them  to 
settle  any  contradictions  that  might  exist.  I  do  not 
need  to  tell  you  what  an  impression  deplorable  subter 
fuges  of  this  kind  have  made  upon  me." 

This  was  Dollinger's  final  attitude  toward  the  Roman 
Communion  up  to  the  last  moment  of  consciousness 
on  earth.  He  never  by  any  act  of  will  deviated  from 
testimony  to  the  Church's  traditional  Faith,  in  which 
the  theory  of  Papal  Infallibility  was  not  included.  To 
the  end  of  his  days  he  held  that  this  theory  could  not 
possibly  be  reconciled  with  the  broad  facts  of  Christian 
history. 


326        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 


V 

The  new  decree  was  profoundly  uncongenial  to  the 
mind  of  Lord  Acton.  He  had  already  expressed  his 
sense  that  recent  developments  of  papal  authority  were 
inconsistent  with  the  earlier  principles  of  Christendom, 
and  disastrous  alike  to  freedom  of  investigation,  and 
to  the  real  interests  of  the  Church.  Manning's  theories 
on  papal  sovereignty  were  a  trial  to  Lord  Acton's 
historical  intellect.  Manning  simply  reproduced  the 
mediaeval  exaggerations  of  temporal  power  which  had 
done  incalculable  mischief  ever  since  Boniface  VIII. 
endorsed  them  in  his  struggle  with  France. 

"You  are  certainly  not  too  severe  on  Manning's 
elaborate  absurdities,"  wrote  Lord  Acton ; l  "I  had 
no  idea  he  had  gone  so  far.  ...  It  is  impossible  to 
exaggerate  the  danger  of  such  doctrines  as  his.  I 
wish  you  would  take  the  line  of  Catholic  indignation  a 
little." 

While  the  Council  sat,  Lord  Acton  was  in  Rome, 
where  popular  opinion  ascribed  the  Articles  in  the 
Augsburg  Gazette  to  his  instrumentality.  "People 
do  not  venture  to  proceed  against  Acton,"  wrote 
Gregorovius  ; 2  "  but  it  is  known  that  he  writes,  and  that 
he  pays  highly  for  the  materials  that  are  supplied  him." 

Archbishop  Manning  had  positive  knowledge  that 
Lord  Acton  was  in  constant  communication  with  Mr 
Gladstone,  supplying  him  with  information  hostile  to 
the  Council ;  "  poisoning  his  mind,"  as  Archbishop 
Manning  phrases  it,  against  Papal  Infallibility  and  the 
Pope's  friends  and  supporters.  Lord  Acton,  as  a  friend 
and  disciple  of  Dr  Dollinger,  had  great  influence  with 

1  Lord  Actcn  and  his  Circle >  pp.  21 1,  212,  215. 
'2  Rom  an  Journals,  p.  356. 


XVIIL]       LORD  ACTON'S  SUBMISSION       327 

the  German  Bishops,  who,  for  the  most  part  belonged 
to  the  Opposition  ;  and  was  also  on  confidential  terms 
with  Mgr.  Darboy,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  and  with 
the  Bishop  of  Orleans,  and  had  not  a  little  to  do 
with  bringing  into  closer  union  the  Bishops  of  France 
and  Germany.  He  was  also  active  in  furnishing  the 
Opposition  with  Dr  Dollinger  and  Professor  Friedrich's 
historical  criticisms  of  the  Papacy.  Lord  Acton,  as 
Manning  knew  well,1  did  more  than  any  other  man, 
except  the  Bishop  of  Orleans,  in  exciting  public  feel 
ing,  especially  in  Germany  and  England,  against  the 
Vatican  Council. 

When,  therefore,  the  Vatican  Decree  was  passed  and 
the  process  of  reducing  objectors  to  uniformity  began, 
it  was  scarcely  probable  that  Lord  Acton  would  be  left 
unchallenged.  Nor  did  he  continue  silent.  He  published 
a  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  Vatican  Council 2  which, 
while  confined  strictly  to  facts,  must  have  been  supremely 
distasteful  to  the  victorious  side.  When  he  said  that 
Pius  was  bound  up  with  the  Jesuits ;  made  them  a 
channel  for  his  influence  and  became  himself  an  in 
strument  of  their  designs ;  when  he  gave  illustrations 
of  authority  overriding  history,  and  the  unscrupulous 
suppression  of  uncongenial  facts ;  when  he  quoted  at 
length  Montalembert's  emphatic  letter  on  the  trans 
formation  of  Catholic  France  into  an  anti- chamber 
of  the  Vatican — he  was  recording  what  was  calculated 
to  advance  the  other  side.  Yet,  of  course,  the  registra 
tion  of  adverse  facts  is  a  different  province  from  personal 
belief. 

But  Acton  went  so  far  as  to  describe  the  Infallibility 
doctrine  as  independent  of  reason  or  history. 

1  Purcell's  Manning,  ii.  p.  434. 

2  Acton,  Vatican  Council.     Munchen  (1871). 


328          MINORITY  AFTER  DECREE        [CHAP. 

"  The  sentiment,"  he  wrote,1  "  on  which  Infallibility 
is  founded  could  not  be  reached  by  argument,  the  weapon 
of  human  reason  ;  but  resided  in  conclusions  transcend 
ing  evidence,  and  was  the  inaccessible  postulate  rather 
than  the  demonstrable  consequence  of  a  system  of  re 
ligious  faith."  The  opponents  were,  according  to  Acton, 
"  baffled  and  perplexed  by  the  serene  vitality  of  a  view 
which  was  impervious  to  proof.  .  .  . 

"  No  appeal  to  revelation  or  tradition,  to  reason  or 
conscience,  appeared  to  have  any  bearing  whatever  on 
the  issue." 

This  persistent  attempt  to  render  authority  inde- 
\  pendent  of  evidence  was,  if  especially  prominent  in 
the  Infallibility  disputes,  a  deeply  seated  and  long 
existing  disease.  It  pervaded  the  theological  school 
then  dominant  in  Rome,  but  it  had,  according  to  Acton, 
exerted  its  baneful  influence  over  the  Roman  Church 
for  centuries.  The  Jesuit  theologian,  Petavius,  in  the 
seventeenth  century  supported  existing  authority  at 
the  expense  of  the  past. 

"  According  to  Petavius,  the  general  belief  of  Catholics 
at  a  given  time  is  the  word  of  God,  and  of  higher 
authority  than  all  antiquity  and  all  the  Fathers. 
Scripture  may  be  silent,  and  tradition  contradictory, 
but  the  Church  is  independent  of  both.  Any  doctrine 
which  Catholic  divines  commonly  assert,  without  proof, 
to  be  revealed,  must  be  taken  as  revealed.  ...  In  this 
way,  after  Scripture  had  been  subjugated,  tradition 
itself  was  deposed ;  and  the  constant  belief  of  the  past 
yielded  to  the  general  conviction  of  the  present.  And 
as  antiquity  had  given  way  to  universality,  universality 
made  way  for  authority." 

Thus  in  Acton's  view  the  dominant  school  in  the 
Roman  Church  were  resolved  that  "authority  must 
conquer  history."  He  went  so  far  as  to  say  that : — 

1  History  of  Freedom,  pp.  512,  513. 


xviii.]       LORD  ACTON'S  SUBMISSION        329 

"  Almost  every  writer  who  really  served  Catholicism 
fell  sooner  or  later  under  the  disgrace  or  the  suspicion 
of  Rome."  Also  that  "the  division  between  the  Roman 
and  the  Catholic  elements  in  the  Church  made  it  hope 
less  to  mediate  between  them." 

Acton's  description  of  the  Vatican  Assembly  itself 
could  only  leave  one  conclusion  as  to  its  methods 
and  impartiality,  on  the  reader's  mind.  He  records 
how  the  Bishops  on  arriving  in  Rome,  were  "  received 
with  the  assurance  that  nobody  had  dreamt  of  defining 
Infallibility,  or  that,  if  the  idea  had  been  entertained 
at  all,  it  had  been  abandoned."  He  records  the  Pope's 
assurance  that  "  he  would  sanction  no  proposition  that 
could  sow  dissension  among  the  Bishops."  He  asserts 
that  the  freedom  of  the  Bishops  was  taken  away  by 
the  regulations  of  the  Bull  Multiplier  inter  imposed 
upon  them  without  their  consent,  and  with  refusal  even 
to  allow  their  protests  to  be  uttered.  He  says  that 
many  Bishops  were  "  bewildered  and  dispirited,"  by 
the  character  of  these  Regulations.  He  says : — 

"  It  was  certain  that  any  real  attempt  that  might  be 
made  to  prevent  the  definition  could  be  overwhelmed 
by  the  preponderance  of  those  Bishops  whom  the 
modern  constitution  of  the  Church  places  in  dependence 
on  Rome." 

He  reveals  his  sympathies  in  the  strongest  way  by 
pouring  out  his  moral  indignation  on  the  minority 
Bishops  for  their  weakness. 

"  They  showed  no  sense  of  their  mission  to  renovate 
Catholicism.  .  .  . 

"  They  were  content  to  leave  things  as  they  were,  to 
gain  nothing  if  they  lost  nothing,  to  renounce  all  pre 
mature  striving  for  reform  if  they  could  succeed  in 
avoiding  a  doctrine  which  they  were  as  unwilling  to 
discuss  as  to  define." 


330        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

The  contemplation  of  all  this  causes  Acton  to  write : — 

"The  Church  had  less  to  fear  from  the  violence  of 
the  majority  than  from  the  inertness  of  their  opponents. 
No  proclamation  of  false  doctrines  could  be  so  great  a 
disaster  as  the  weakness  of  faith  which  would  prove  that 
the  power  of  recovering  the  vital  force  of  Catholicism 
was  extinct  in  the  Episcopate." 

And  then  Acton  traces  the  gradual  tightening  of  the 
cords  as  the  feeble  and  unhappy  minority  are  more 
and  more  overcome.  The  new  Regulations  determined 
that  decrees  should  be  carried  by  majority.  They 
could  not  be  accepted  by  the  minority  without  virtual 
admission  that  the  Pope  must  be  infallible.  For 

"  If  the  act  of  a  majority  of  Bishops  in  the  Council, 
possibly  not  representing  a  majority  in  the  Church, 
is  infallible,  it  derives  its  Infallibility  from  the  Pope." 
"  But  it  was  a  point  which  Rome  could  not  surrender 
without  giving  up  its  whole  position.  To  wait  for 
unanimity  was  to  wait  for  ever,  and  to  admit  that  a 
minority  could  prevent  or  nullify  the  dogmatic  action 
of  the  Papacy  was  to  renounce  Infallibility.  No  alter 
native  remained  to  the  opposing  Bishops  but  to  break 
up  the  Council." 

This  was  exactly  where  their  courage  failed  them 
They  protested,  but  submitted.  And  here  comes  Acton's 
judgment  on  their  submission  : — 

"  They  might  conceivably  contrive  to  bind  and  limit 
dogmatic  Infallibility  with  conditions  so  stringent  as 
to  evade  many  of  the  objections  taken  from  the 
examples  of  history  ;  but  in  requiring  submission  to 
Papal  Decrees  on  matters  not  Articles  of  Faith,  they 
were  approving  that  of  which  they  knew  the  character, 
they  were  confirming  without  let  or  question  a  power 
they  saw  in  daily  exercise,  they  were  investing  with 
new  authority  the  existing  Bulls,  and  giving  unqualified 


xvm.j      LORD  ACTON'S  SUBMISSION        331 

sanction  to  the  Inquisition  and  the  Index,  to  the 
murder  of  heretics  and  the  deposing  of  kings.  They 
approved  what  they  were  called  on  to  reform,  and 
solemnly  blessed  with  their  lips  what  their  hearts  knew 
to  be  accursed." 

The  effect  of  this  moral  feebleness  on  the  Roman 
authorities  was,  says  Acton,  that 

"  the  Court  of  Rome  became  thenceforth  reckless  in 
its  scorn  of  the  opposition,  and  proceeded  in  the  belief 
that  there  was  no  protest  they  would  not  forget,  no 
principle  they  would  not  betray,  rather  than  defy  the 
Pope  in  his  wrath.  It  was  at  once  determined  to  bring 
on  the  discussion  of  Infallibility." 

Lord  Acton's  objections  to  the  Infallibility  school 
were  clearly  of  a  triple  character.  In  relation  to 
History :  it  betrayed  a  resolve  to  instate  Authority 
independently  of  proof.  It  was  the  product  of  indiffer 
ence  to  fact.  "  The  serene  vitality  of  a  view  impervious 
to  proof,"  could  only  shock  and  distress  a  profound 
veneration  for  the  actual.  To  those  who  build  on  facts 
such  disregard  for  evidence  must  appear  as  building 
without  foundation.  In  relation  to  method :  if  the 
origin  of  the  doctrine  was  insecure,  no  less  unsatisfactory 
was  the  method  by  which  it  was  decreed.  Acton's 
description  makes  the  Decree  the  product  of  cowardly 
weakness  on  the  one  side,  and  unscrupulous  coercion 
on  the  other.  The  spiritual  value  of  the  result 
obtained  might  be  measured  by  the  immorality  of 
the  means  employed.  It  could  not,  it  did  not,  enlist 
his  loyalty  or  command  his  reverence.  In  relation 
to  results :  plainly  Acton  did  not  believe  that  the 
limitless  exaltation  of  Authority  was  beneficial,  or  that 
it  could  lead  to  anything  but  results  disastrous  to  the 
real  interests  of  the  Church,  The  severity  of  his 


332        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

judgment  on  the  minority,  for  investing  with  new 
Authority  the  Papal  Decree,  was  born  of  a  deep  con 
viction  that  already,  on  countless  occasions,  that 
Authority  had  proved  excessive,  injurious  to  the 
advance  of  truth,  and  the  freedom  of  the  individual. 
It  is  probably  quite  correct  that  Acton's  objections 
were  more  on  the  moral  and  political  or  social  side 
than  on  the  strictly  theological.  But  his  sharp  dis 
tinction  between  the  Catholic  and  the  Roman  elements 
within  the  Church  is  really  a  distinction  in  dogmatic 
principles.  And  nothing  can  exceed  his  loathing  for 
principles  commonly  known  as  Ultramontane.  Acton 
and  Manning  stand  at  the  opposite  poles  in  their 
anticipations  of  the  results  of  the  dogma  of  Infallibility. 
But  Lord  Acton  went  far  beyond  all  this.  He 
wrote  a  letter l  to  a  German  Bishop  reproaching  the 
minority  with  inconsistency  in  discontinuing  their 
opposition  after  the  Infallibility  Decree  was  published. 
In  this  letter  he  gives  the  actual  language  of  the  leaders 
of  the  minority,  and  concludes — 

"  The  Council  is  thus  judged  by  the  lips  of  its  most 
able  members.  They  describe  it  as  a  conspiracy  against 
truth  and  rights.  They  declare  that  the  new  dogmas 
were  neither  taught  by  the  Apostles  nor  believed  of  the 
Fathers." 

This  letter  was  described  by  the  Dublin  Review 2  as 
"  an  open  and  decisive  revolt  against  the  Church." 

Yet  it  does  not  appear  that  the  writer  was  challenged 
to  express  his  adhesion  to  the  new  Decree.  But  Lord 
Acton's  letters  during  this  period  are  yet  to  be  pub 
lished.  Abbot  Gasquet3  omits  all  the  critical  years  from 

1  Scndschreibcn  an  einen  Deutschen  Bishof(  September  1870). 

2  N.S.  vol.  xvi.  (1871),  p.  212. 

3  Lord  Acton  and  his  Circle, 


XVIIL]      LORD   ACTON'S  SUBMISSION         333 

1869-1874.  Lord  Acton,  however,  did  not  ultimately 
escape  unchallenged.  He  was  not  in  Manning's 
Diocese  or  we  may  feel  fairly  certain  that  the  Arch 
bishop  of  Westminster  would  have  pounced  upon  him. 
Meantime  Mr  Gladstone  argued  that  the  Vatican 
Decrees  involved  political  consequences  adverse  to 
modern  freedom.1  The  Church's  power  to  employ 
coercion  was  asserted  by  the  Syllabus,  and  acknowledged 
by  Newman.2  Now  that  such  consequences  could  be 
drawn  from  the  Vatican  Decrees  Lord  Acton  did  not 
dream  of  denying.3  Gladstone's  argument  could  not  be 
met  by  denial.  And,  of  course,  the  whole  sympathies  of 
Acton's  mind  were  with  Gladstone  so  far  as  repudiation 
of  the  use  of  coercive  force  in  religion  is  concerned. 
Nothing  in  the  world  roused  Acton's  moral  indignation 
more  than  Inquisition  and  Liguori's  ethics.  He  admitted 
j  with  characteristic  sincerity  that  "  Gladstone  had  not 
darkened  the  dark  side  of  the  question."  All  he  could 
answer  was  that  it  does  not  follow  that  inferences  which 
can  be  drawn  will  actually  be  made.  He  held  that 
"  the  Council  did  not  so  directly  deal  with  these  matters 
as  to  exclude  a  Catholic  explanation."  The  Council  had 
not  so  acted  "  that  no  authentic  gloss  or  explanation 
could  ever  put  those  perilous  consequences  definitely 
out  of  the  way."  This  was  certainly  a  curious  defence 
of  an  Ecumenical  Decree.  It  does  not  exclude  a 
Catholic  explanation.  But  this  was  all  he  could  say. 
He  could  not  even  say  what  that  true  explanation  was  ; 
for  on  that  ground  his  own  authorities  might  reject 
him.  "  I  could  not  take  my  stand,  for  good  or  evil,  as 
an  interpreter  of  the  Decrees,  without  risk  of  authori 
tative  contradiction."  This  attitude,  says  Acton,  "was 

1  Vaticanism^  p.  77.  2  Ibid.  p.  77. 

3  Gasquet,  Lord  Acton  and  his  Circle,  p.  366. 


334        MINORITY   AFTER   DECREE         [CHAP. 

no  attack  on  the  Council,  although  it  was  an  attack 
on  Ultramontanism." l 

But  Lord  Acton  proceeded  to  defend  the  Council  in 
the  Times  newspaper 2  from  Mr  Gladstone's  inferences. 

"  I  affirmed  that  the  apprehension  of  civil  danger 
from  the  Vatican  Council  overlooks  the  infinite  subtlety 
and  inconsistency  with  which  men  practically  elude  the 
yoke  of  official  uniformity  in  matters  of  opinion." 

And,  as  an  illustration  of  this  infinite  subtlety  in 
eluding  authority,  he  quoted  the  example  of  Archbishop 
Fenelon,  who  "while  earning  admiration  for  his  humility 
under  censure  [by  the  Pope]  had  retained  his  former 
views  unchanged."  Fenelon  wrote  : — 3 

"  I  accept  this  Brief  .  .  .  simply  absolutely  and 
without  shadow  of  reserve.  God  forbid  that  I  should 
ever  be  remembered  except  as  a  pastor  who  believed  it 
his  duty  to  be  more  docile  than  the  humblest  of  his 
sheep,  and  who  placed  no  limit  to  his  submission." 

Three  weeks  later  Fe"nelon  wrote  to  a  friend  : — 

"  I  acknowledge  no  uncertainty  either  as  to  the 
correctness  of  my  opinions  throughout  or  as  to  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  doctrine  which  I  have  maintained. 
.  .  .  Unless  competent  persons  rouse  themselves  in 
Rome  the  faith  is  in  great  danger." 

It  was  no  more  than  natural,  after  such  public  letters, 
that  Lord  Acton  should  be  called  in  question  by  the 
authorities  of  his  Communion.  It  was  asserted  in  the 
Roman  Church  that  he  did  not  believe  the  Vatican 
Decrees.  Manning  wrote  to  enquire  what  construction 

1  Gasquet,  Lord  Acton  and  his  Circle,  p.  366. 
8  24th  November  1874.  *  Pastoral  (1699). 


XVIIL]      LORD   ACTON'S  SUBMISSION         335 

he  placed  upon  them  in  order  that  the  minds  of  the 
multitude  might  be  reassured.  A  curious  and  very 
instructive  correspondence  l  ensued.  Lord  Acton  took 
advice  as  to  the  answer  he  should  give. 

"  The  great  question  is,"  he  wrote  privately  to  a  friend, 
"  whether  I  ought  to  say  that  I  submit  to  the  acts  of  this 
as  of  other  Councils,  without  difficulty  or  examination 
(meaning  that  I  feel  no  need  of  harmonising  and  recon 
ciling  what  the  Church  herself  has  not  yet  had  time 
to  reconcile  and  to  harmonise),  or  ought  not  the  word 
submit  to  be  avoided,  as  easily  misunderstood." 

After  further  reflection  Lord  Acton  proposed  to  say  : — 

"  I  do  not  reject — which  is  all  the  Council  requires 
under  its  extreme  sanctions.  As  the  Bishops  who  are 
my  guides  have  accepted  the  decrees,  so  have  I.  They 
are  a  law  to  me  as  much  as  those  at  Trent,  not  from 
any  private  interpretation,  but  from  the  authority  from 
which  they  come.  The  difficulties  about  reconciling 
them  with  tradition,  which  seem  so  strong  to  others,  do 
not  disturb  me  a  layman,  whose  business  it  is  not  to 
explain  theological  questions,  and  who  leaves  that  to 
his  betters.2 

"  Manning  .  .  .  says  he  must  leave  the  thing  in  the 
hands  of  the  Pope,  as  everybody  tells  him  I  don't  believe 
the  Vatican  Council.  He  means,  it  seems  to  me,  that 
he  simply  asks  Rome  to  excommunicate  me — a  thing 
really  almost  without  example  and  incredible  in  the 
case  of  a  man  who  has  not  attacked  the  Council,  who 
declares  that  he  has  not,  and  that  the  Council  is  his  law, 
though  private  interpretations  are  not,  whose  Diocesan 
has,  after  enquiry,  pronounced  him  exempt  from  all 
anathema."3 

Against  Lord   Acton   no   further   action  was   taken. 

1  Lord  Adon  and  his  Circle^  pp.  359,  360,  364.  2  Ibid.  p.  364. 

3  Ibid.  p.  368. 


336        MINORITY   AFTER  DECREE          [CHAP. 

The  disastrous  effect  of  the  excommunication  of 
Dollinger  may  have  made  Authority  cautious  in  the 
exercise  of  this  deadly  weapon.  Acton  indeed  sub 
mitted  ;  but  Manning's  misgivings  seem  more  than 
justified.  It  is  difficult  to  define  the  sense  in  which 
Acton  became  a  believer  in  the  new  Decree.  "  He 
remained  all  his  life,"  says  Bryce,1  "  a  faithful  member 
of  the  Roman  Communion,  while  adhering  to  the  views 
which  he  advocated  in  1870." 

It  is  quite  true  that  Acton  was  not  an  Anglican ; 
he  was  still  less  a  Protestant.  He  never  joined  the 
old  Catholic  movement,  and  is  said  to  have  dissuaded 
his  friends  from  taking  that  course.  But  it  is  certain 
that  he  was  never  an  Ultramontane.  The  distinction 
he  drew  between  Catholic  and  Roman  elements  in 
the  Church  helps  to  explain  his  own  position.  He 
was  a  Catholic  as  opposed  to  the  modern  Roman 
type. 

If,  as  Pius  IX.  asserted,  Catholic  and  Ultramontane 
are  synonymous,  then  Acton's  position  was  precarious. 
But  their  identity  is  what  he  persistently  and  firmly 
denied.  He  considered  Ultramontanism  as  an  unhappy 
and  mischievous  influence  perverting  truths  and  ignor 
ing  history,  speculative  in  its  origin,  and  injurious  in 
its  results.  He  was  well  aware,  his  historic  insight  made 
it  clearer  to  him  than  to  many,  that  the  school  he  re 
sented  was  a  long-standing  disease ;  that  its  presence 
could  be  traced  for  centuries,  if  in  a  less  pronounced 
and  virulent  form  than  to-day.  But  the  long-standing 
nature  of  the  disease  did  not  shake  his  faith  in  the 
certainty  of  a  remedy,  and  a  removal  sooner  or  later. 
He  did  not,  it  has  been  well  said,  identify  the  long- 
lived  with  the  eternal. 

Sooner  or  later  then,  Ultramontanism,  according  to 

1  Biographical  Studies,  pp.  385,  386. 


XVIIL]     LORD  ACTON'S  SUBMISSION         337 

Acton's  views,  was  destined  to  pass  away.  It  was 
no  more  than  a  temporary,  if  protracted,  disease  from 
which  the  Church  must  at  length  recover.  Mean 
while,  therefore,  he  held  to  his  post,  accepting  the 
present  discomfiture  in  the  hope  of  better  days  ; 
waiting  until  this  tyranny  be  overpast.  He  had  no 
thought  of  departure.  The  Roman  Communion  was 
the  Church  of  his  birth  and  of  his  devotional  affinities. 
He  spoke  of  it  reverentially  as  "the  Church  whose 
communion  is  dearer  to  me  than  life."1  He  would 
never  have  left  it  of  his  own  accord.  But,  while 
wholly  identified  with  the  ancient  Catholic  conceptions, 
he  absolutely  repudiated  the  principles  of  the  Ultra 
montane.  By  what  process  he  retained  his  place 
while  Dollinger  was  exiled  seems  not  altogether  clear. 
Acton  felt  acutely  the  possibility  that,  like  Dollinger, 
he  also  might  be  cast  out. 

Whether  wisdom  or  prudence  or  diplomacy  refrained 
from  him  and  let  him  alone,  there  at  any  rate  he 
lived  and  died.  But  the  legitimacy  or  consistency  of  his 
position  was  the  theme  of  a  fierce  and  bitter  controversy 
in  the  Roman  journals  after  he  was  dead. 

So  the  great  struggle  in  the  Roman  Communion 
between  the  episcopal  and  the  papal  conceptions  of 
Authority,  the  collective  and  the  individual,  came  to  an 
end.  Every  Bishop  of  the  minority  submitted.  This 
is  a  magnificent  tribute  to  the  power  of  Rome.  It 
held  its  defeated  Episcopate  in  unbroken  unity.  Only 
the  old  Catholic  movement  created  an  independent 
community.  But  when  the  motives  are  considered 
which  induced  the  minority  to  yield,  the  strongest 
principle  appears  to  be  the  maintenance  of  external 
unity.  The  abler  minds  resisted,  after  the  Decree 

1  Letter  to  the  Times. 


338         MINORITY    AFTER    DECREE        [CHAP. 

was  known,  so  long  as  resistance  was  possible.  Only 
when  the  presence  of  threatened  excommunication  drew 
them  to  an  ultimate  decision,  the  Bishops  submitted, 
with  what  grace  they  could,  to  a  Decree  which  they 
dared  no  longer  resist.  But  the  submission  is,  even 
then,  cautious,  reluctant,  and  reserved.  In  some 
instances  it  is  yielded  in  a  tone  of  curtness  or  asperity. 
In  other  instances,  with  comments  and  explanations, 
in  private  letters,  wholly  inconsistent  with  genuine 
faith.  It  is  difficult  to  find  in  a  single  minority  sub 
mission  the  joyous  devotion  which  is  surely  due  to 
a  heaven-sent  revelation  of  eternal  truth.  They  do 
not  accept  the  doctrine  as  a  blessed  enlightenment, 
but  rather  as  a  heavy  burden  to  which  they  are 
unwillingly  obliged  to  coerce  their  priests.  They  do 
not  appear  like  men  whose  intensity  of  conviction 
enables  them  to  say : — "  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  to  us."  They  would  infinitely  sooner  ask 
no  questions,  if  Rome  would  only  let  them.  They  are 
driven  to  excommunicate  others,  much  against  their 
will,  for  continuing  to  hold  what  they  themselves  had 
taught  them,  and  were,  until  recently,  inwardly  per 
suaded  was  true.  It  is  a  painful  and  unattractive  sight. 
In  the  frankness  of  confidential  utterances  after  the 
event  they  owned  with  manifest  sincerity  that  they 
did  not  believe  the  Decision  valid,  nor  the  Doctrine 
part  of  the  Historic  Faith.  But,  being  forced  by 
Authority  to  choose  between  submission  and  excom 
munication,  they  mostly  preferred  submission.  The 
choice  is  intelligible.  They  loved  the  Church.  Taught 
to  regard  its  limits  as  practically  identical  with  those 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven — yet  certain  that  history 
contradicted  what  they  were  now  required  to  believe, 
they  were  placed  in  the  terrible  dilemma  of  loyalty 
to  reason  against  religious  interest,  or  to  religious 


CONCLUSION  339 

interest  against  their  reason.  The  issue  was  solemn 
whichever  side  they  chose.  But  the  prior  question 
which  the  alternative  raises  is  this :  "  What  is  the 
spiritual  value  of  an  Absolute  Authority  which 
inflicted  such  an  awful  dilemma  upon  its  own  devoted 
sons  ? " 


CHAPTER   XIX 

THE   INFALLIBILITY  DOCTRINE 

IT  is  essential  to  the  completeness  of  our  exposition 
that  we  should  analyse  the  doctrine  itself  which  the 
Vatican  Council  decreed.  The  Vatican  affirmation 
is  that,  under  certain  circumstances,  the  Pope  is  in 
fallible,  or  divinely  protected  from  error  in  his  official 
utterances  on  faith  and  morals  to  the  whole  Church. 
We  will  omit  for  the  present  the  limitations  and 
confine  our  attention  solely  to  the  Council's  statement 
that  the  Pope's  Infallibility  is  "that  with  which  God 
was  pleased  to  endow  His  Church."  Thus  Papal  In 
fallibility  is  considered  co-extensive  with  the  Church's 
Infallibility. 

But  what  is  Infallibility?  It  does  not  imply  the 
granting  of  a  new  revelation.  It  is  concerned  with 
the  exposition  of  a  revelation  already  given.  It  is 
not  equivalent  to  Inspiration,  such  as  the  Apostles 
possessed.  It  is  merely  "  assistance  by  which  its 
possessor  is  not  permitted  to  err  whether  in  the  use 
of  the  means  for  investigating  revealed  truth  or  in 
proposing  truth  for  human  acceptance." l  It  is,  accord 
ing  to  Newman,2  simply  an  external  guardianship, 
keeping  its  recipient  ofT  from  error :  "  as  a  man's 
guardian  angel,  without  enabling  him  to  walk,  might, 

1  Hurter,  Compendium  Theol.  Dogm.  i.  p.  283. 

2  Letter  to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  117. 

340 


CHAP,  xix.]  ITS   NATURE  341 

on  a  night  journey,  keep  him  from  pitfalls  in  his  way." 
It  is  a  guardianship  saving  its  recipient  "from  the 
effects  of  his  inherent  infirmities,  from  any  chance  of 
extravagance,  or  confusion  of  thought." 

Any  serious  study  of  Infallibility  must  realise  that 
the  question  is  only  part  of  a  vastly  larger  subject, 
namely,  the  relation  of  the  human  will  to  the  Divine. 
To  describe  Infallibility  as  "an  assistance  by  which 
the  Church  is  not  permitted  to  err,  whether  in  the 
use  of  the  means  for  investigating  revealed  truth,  or 
in  proposing  truth  to  man's  acceptance  " l  is  to  assume 
a  theory  of  divine  coercion  which  awakens  some  of 
the  profoundest  psychological  and  dogmatic  problems. 
It  has  well  been  said  that  "  two  conditions  are  required 
for  an  authoritative  decision :  the  use  of  natural 
means,  and  a  special  Providence  directing  that  use.  If 
the  former  condition  be  absent,  the  latter  is  simply 
impossible."  2  But  what  is  constantly  forgotten  in  dis 
cussions  on  Infallibility  is  this  conditional  nature  of 
all  divine  assistance.  It  is  constantly  assumed  that 
the  divine  assistance  will  overrule,  even  in  the  absence 
of  compliance  with  what  are  acknowledged  to  be 
duties  on  the  part  of  the  recipient.  There  is  an 
obvious  simplicity,  there  seems  an  edifying  piety,  in 
saying  that  this  endowment  is  an  assistance  by  which 
the  recipient  is  "not  permitted  to  err."  But  this 
deliverance  from  error  cannot  be  independent  of  the 
recipient's  will,  and  irrespective  of  his  receptivity. 

Suppose,  for  instance,  Infallibility  to  be  located  in 
a  Council.  It  cannot  act  independently  of  certain 
conditions.  It  might  be  thwarted  by  fear  or  external 
constraint.  Nor  are  merely  external  conditions  alone 
essential.  There  must  be  inward  freedom  to  preserve 

1  Hurter,  i.  p.  283. 

2  Nineteenth  Century  (May  1901),  p.  742. 


342    THE   INFALLIBILITY   DOCTRINE   [CHAP. 

its  own  normal  course.  Many  Roman  Catholics  com 
plained  that  the  Vatican  Council  was  so  seriously 
hampered,  by  regulations  imposed  upon  it  from  without, 
that  conciliar  freedom  was  thereby  made  impossible. 
The  overruling  of  a  large  minority  by  force  of  numbers 
simply  shook  the  faith  of  many  devoted  sons  of  the 
Roman  Church.  They  experienced  the  greatest  difficulty, 
almost  insuperable,  in  crediting  its  Infallibility.  Yet, 
from  their  point  of  view,  the  Council  was  legitimate 
in  its  inception,  and  in  its  constitution  ecumenical. 
Now,  if  a  Council,  with  such  beginnings,  can  nevertheless 
suggest  these  misgivings  to  Roman  minds,  may  not 
similar  misgivings  arise  over  a  papal  utterance  ? 

Suppose  then  Infallibility  located  in  a  single  individual : 
he  must  comply  with  certain  conditions.  Are  those 
conditions  purely  external,  concerned  alone  with 
outward  formalities  ?  Or  do  they  include  moral 
qualities  and  inward  state?  What  is  the  authority  in 
revelation  for  the  assertion  that  a  divine  assistance  so 
completely  overrules  a  personality  that  he  is  "  not  per 
mitted  to  err."  The  illustration  of  the  guardian  angel 
preventing  a  fall  is  an  illustration  of  external  coercion, 
in  which  the  will  of  the  guided  has  no  share.  He  is 
simply  upheld  in  spite  of  himself.  Is  this  the  case 
with  the  Pope  in  the  exercise  of  his  Infallibility?  Is 
the  Pope's  capacity  to  discharge  so  awful  a  function 
absolutely  independent  of  his  moral  and  spiritual  state  ? 
Is  there  a  suspension  of  the  liability  to  self-will  ?  Does 
the  personal  equation  go  for  nothing?  Is  it  really 
credible  that  any  other  person  placed  where  Pius  was 
would  have  said  the  same?  Do  the  antecedents,  the 
temperament,  the  mental  furniture,  in  no  way  affect 
the  utterance?  Grant  as  large  a  margin  as  we  may 
to  the  action  and  control  of  this  "  Divine  Assistance," 
yet  still  beyond  that  margin  must  be  a  residuum  where 


xix.]  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH    343 

the  human  individuality  comes  into  play,  and  shares 
in  producing  the  final  result.  Hence  a  possibility  must 
always  exist,  and  it  cannot  be  evaded,  that,  in  a  given 
instance,  notwithstanding  compliance  with  external 
formalities,  the  inward  essential  conditions  were  not 
fulfilled  ;  and  consequently  the  result  was  not  infallible. 
Do  what  you  will,  it  is  impossible  in  human  affairs  to 
avoid  this  element  of  insecurity,  unless  the  human 
instrument  be  reduced  to  a  mere  mechanism  upon  which 
the  Spirit  plays  as  it  pleases. 


I 

What  then  is  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church?  This 
is  precisely  what  the  Council  assumes  as  known,  and 
does  not  explain.  The  Infallibility  of  the  Church  has 
never  been  authoritatively  defined.  It  has  been  treated, 
of  course,  by  theologians,  but  never  formulated  by  the 
Church.  Hence  the  minority  in  the  Vatican  Council 
pleaded  that  this  subject  should  first  be  discussed  :  as 
indeed  the  logical  order  appeared  to  demand. 

All  doctrine  on  the  Church's  Infallibility  will  vary 
according  as  its  basis  is  purely  a  priori  and  theoretical, 
or  historical.  These  are  the  two  methods  which  dis 
tinguish  all  Christian  thinking.  We  may  start  from 
the  ideal,  and  infer  that  this  is  what  the  Almighty 
must  have  created,  or  we  may  begin  with  the  actual, 
and  draw  our  principles  from  the  facts. 

Now  the  prevalent  method  in  modern  Roman  theology 
is  the  theoretical  as  contrasted  with  the  critical  and 
historical.  This  method  is  not  confined  to  certain 
extremists.  It  saturates  the  theological  writings  through 
and  through.  Starting  with  an  ideal  of  the  divine 
purposes,  it  is  assumed  that  the  Almighty  must  have 


344    THE   INFALLIBILITY   DOCTRINE   [CHAP. 

constituted  the  Church  in  a  certain  way;  that  He 
must  have  endowed  it  with  certain  prerogatives  and 
certain  authorities  and  certain  safeguards  and  certain 
supremacies;  because  those  prerogatives  and  so  forth 
are,  in  the  writer's  ideal  view,  necessary  to  the  Church's 
achievement  of  certain  ends.  Then  with  this  ideal 
already  in  possession,  controlling  the  imagination,  and 
determining  the  mind  what  it  is  to  discover,  advance 
is  made  to  the  actual,  to  Scripture  and  to  History; 
with  the  result  that  these  are  found  to  confirm  anticipa 
tions — not  it  is  true  without  difficulties,  nor  without 
feats  of  agility  to  the  bystanders  simply  amazing,  but 
yet  to  the  complete  satisfaction  of  the  writer's  mind. 
Nevertheless,  the  result  is  blindness  to  historical  reality. 
No  one  has  expressed  this  better  than  F.  Ryder  writing 
against  an  extremist  in  1867,  but  in  words  which 
accurately  describes  a  conviction  widely  prevalent  in 
the  Roman  obedience. 

"  It  is  notorious  that  in  some  minds  the  craving  for 
ideal  completeness  is  so  strong  as  to  overpower  from 
time  to  time  their  sense  of  truth,  and  under  the  influence 
of  this  craving,  without  any  conscious  dishonesty,  they 
are  unable  to  read  either  in  the  past  or  present  world 
of  experience  anything  but  what,  according  to  their 
preconceived  notions,  should  be.  Such  minds,  as  we 
might  expect,  have  a  strong  instinctive  dislike  for 
historical  studies."1 

If  instead  of  theoretical  inferences  from  an  ideal, 
we  take  the  critical  and  historic  way,  very  different 
conclusions  may  be  reached  as  to  Infallibility.  If  the 
promises  of  Christ,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,"  "  He 
shall  guide  you  into  all  truth,"  are  interpreted  in  the 
absence  of  Roman  preconceptions,  it  is  evident  that 

1  Ryder,  Idealism  in  Theology,  p.  5. 


xix.]  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH    345 

they  do  not  necessarily  commit  our  Lord  to  the  Ultra 
montane  conclusions.  They  may  mean,  they  appear 
to  mean,  something  quite  other  than  that.  Indeed 
these  Ultramontane  conceptions  appear  to  be  not  derived 
from  but  read  into  them.  At  any  rate  what  Infallibility 
exists  in  Christendom  should  be  ascertained  from  the 
facts  of  Christian  history.  An  existence  of  well-nigh 
two  thousand  years  must  certainly  yield  a  safer  basis 
for  inferences,  as  to  the  contents  of  the  promises  of 
Christ,  than  an  &  priori  theory  of  things  which  seems 
to  us  ideal. 

The  Infallibility  of  the  Church  is  commonly  asserted 
by  Roman  writers  to  be  twofold.  It  is  distinguished 
as  active  and  passive :  corresponding  to  the  familiar 
division  between  the  Church  as  teacher,  and  the  Church 
as  taught.  Active  Infallibility  is  the  prerogative  of 
teaching  without  liability  to  mislead.  Passive  Infalli 
bility  is  the  advantage  of  being  taught  without  liability 
to  be  misled.  Thus  for  all  practical  purposes  the  Infalli 
bility  of  the  Church  would  mean  the  Infallibility  of 
the  Episcopate.  The  laity  being  reduced  to  a  position 
of  mere  receptivity,  having  no  active  share  in  the 
maintenance  and  perpetuation  of  Tradition. 

Whether  this  conception  is  philosophic  or  historical  is 
alike  open  to  serious  doubt.  In  the  first  place,  the  Church 
is  an  organism,  a  totality,  which  cannot  be,  except  in 
theory,  severed  into  merely  active  and  merely  passive 
parts.  After  all,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  collective 
Christian  consciousness — the  mind  of  the  Church,  which 
overrides  all  barriers  of  practical  convenience,  such  as 
the  distinction  between  teacher  and  taught.  If  history 
be  regarded,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  laity 
has  been  no  mere  passive  recipient,  but  largely  a  con 
troller  of  forms  of  devotion  ;  and  forms  of  devotion 
are,  after  all,  expressions  of  the  rule  of  faith.  The 


346    THE   INFALLIBILITY    DOCTRINE   [CHAP. 

control  which  the  laity  had  exercised  over  doctrines 
and  creeds  and  formulas  of  truth  is  historically 
indisputable.  Instances  are  recorded  when  it  is  said 
that  the  heart  of  the  people  was  truer  than  the  lips 
of  the  priests. 


II 

The  Infallibility  of  the  Episcopate  has  been  variously 
asserted  and  denied  by  Roman  theologians  since  the 
Vatican  Decree.  Schwane,1  for  instance,  asserts  that  the 
Episcopate  assembled  in  Council  possesses  no  greater 
authority  than  when  it  is  dispersed.  Individually  they 
are  not  infallible,  nor  are  they  so  collectively.  Hurter,2 
on  the  contrary,  maintains  the  opposite  view.  The 
Episcopate  is  the  recipient  of  Infallibility.  The  Bishops 
are  heirs  to  this  Apostolic  prerogative  because  they 
are  the  Apostles'  legitimate  successors.  By  the  consent 
of  all  antiquity,  Bishops  are  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
As  St  Jerome  says  :  "  Bishops  occupy  among  us  the 
Apostles'  place."  Accordingly,  Hurter  maintains  that 
the  Episcopate  is  infallible  not  only  when  assembled 
in  Council  but  also  when  dispersed  ;  if  it  teach  any 
thing  unanimously  as  of  faith. 

This  doctrine  he  bases  first  on  the  promises  of  Christ, 
which  apply  equally  to  the  Episcopate  in  either  con 
dition.  Secondly,  on  the  belief  of  Antiquity,  which 
regarded  a  doctrine  as  heretical  if  conflicting  with  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  dispersed  Episcopate.  Many 
heresies  were  condemned,  without  assembling  an 
Ecumenical  Council,  simply  by  the  unanimity  of  the 
Bishops.  Thirdly,  the  doctrine  is  confirmed  by  the 
improbabilities  which  would  follow  the  other  view. 

1  Hist.  Dogm.  v.  p.  461.  2  Compendium,  i.  p.  27iff. 


xix.]     INFALLIBILITY   OF   EPISCOPATE     347 

For  unless  the  dispersed  Episcopate  be  infallible  it 
would  follow  that  it  has  hardly  ever  exercised  its 
prerogative,  since  Ecumenical  Councils  are  very  rare. 
Moreover,  were  it  only  infallible  when  assembled,  its 
prerogative  would  depend  for  its  exercise  on  permission 
from  the  secular  powers  ;  which  might,  and  actually  did, 
prevent  their  assembling.  Hurter,  therefore,  teaches 
the  Infallibility  of  the  Episcopate  whether  collected 
or  dispersed. 

It  certainly  must  be  allowed  that  Hurter's  view  is 
far  more  helpful  to  the  papal  doctrine  than  Schwane's 
depreciation  of  the  Episcopate.  For,  if  the  Episcopate 
possesses  no  Infallibility  what  becomes  of  that  Infalli 
bility  wherewith,  according  to  the  Vatican  statement, 
Christ  has  endowed  His  Church,  and  with  which  the 
prerogative  of  the  Pope  is  compared  and  equalised  ? 
It  is,  of  course,  no  function  of  ours  to  adjust  conflicting 
Roman  estimates  of  episcopal  power.  But  it  is  of 
the  greatest  interest  to  all  reflective  Christian  minds 
to  compare  the  teachings  of  to-day  with  the  concep 
tions  of  antiquity. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Infallibility  of  the  Episcopate, 
when  unanimous,  means,  if  strictly  analysed,  that  each 
particular  Church  is  summed  up  and  represented  in 
its  chief  pastor,  who  voices  the  collective  consciousness 
of  his  people,  and  bears  witness  to  the  Tradition  which 
he  has  inherited  and  is  transmitting.  The  testimony  of 
the  entire  Episcopate  when  unanimous  would  naturally 
represent  the  Church's  mind.  The  Infallibility  of  the 
Episcopate  could  in  the  nature  of  the  case  only  exist 
on  condition  of  their  unanimity.  It  could  not  hold  in 
conflicting  testimonies  to  contrary  traditions.  Hence 
the  ancient  conviction  that  the  dogmatic  decisions  of 
an  Ecumenical  Council  must  of  necessity  be  morally 
unanimous,  otherwise  they  could  not  claim  ecumenicity. 


348    THE   INFALLIBILITY   DOCTRINE    [CHAP. 

Few  Roman  writers  of  last  century  have  enforced  this 
more  strongly  than  Dr  Newman.  After  the  Vatican 
Decree  he  wrote  : — 

"  First,  till  better  advised,  nothing  shall  make  me 
say  that  a  mere  majority  in  a  Council,  as  opposed  to 
a  moral  unanimity  in  itself,  creates  an  obligation  to 
receive  its  dogmatic  decrees."1 

Newman,  however,  lived  to  be  informed  that  the 
notion  of  moral  unanimity  was  a  piece  of  Gallicanism.2 

The  prevalent  Roman  theory  of  to-day  is  that  the 
decision  in  General  Councils  does  not  depend  on  the 
majority  of  votes,  but  always  on  that  part  which  sides 
with  the  Pope.  It  has  been  considered  possible  that 
all  the  Bishops  united  in  Council  without  the  Pope 
might  be  deceived,  and  fall  into  erroneous  doctrine. 
He  would  then  exercise  his  function  of  strengthening 
his  brethren  in  the  faith. 

The  Roman  doctrine  is  that  the  Infallibility  of  Councils 
does  not  depend  upon  the  subsequent  consent  and 
acceptance  by  the  Church.  Now  many  Councils  and 
Assemblies  of  Bishops  have  been  held  in  Christendom. 
Some  are  infallible,  and  some  are  not.  How  can  we 
distinguish  the  Ecumenical  Infallible  Council  from 
assemblies  which  do  not  possess  this  great  prerogative  ? 
Does  it  depend  upon  the  presence  of  the  entire 
Episcopate  ?  Manifestly  not.  Several  of  the  Councils 
acknowledged  as  Ecumenical  or  Universal  consisted 
of  a  comparatively  small  proportion  of  the  entire 
Episcopate.  To  this  and  similar  enquiries  the  modern 
Ultramontane  returns  the  answer  that  the  character 
of  a  Council  depends  neither  on  its  numbers,  nor  its 
majorities,  nor  its  acceptance  by  the  Church ;  but 
simply  and  solely  on  its  endorsement  by  the  Pope. 

1  Letter  to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  98.  2  Postscript,  p.  151. 


xix.]     INFALLIBILITY  OF  EPISCOPATE     349 

Now,  given  the  existing  condition  of  Roman  develop 
ments,  the  absolutism  of  their  monarchical  system,  the 
practical  utility  of  this  answer  is  undeniable.  But  its 
assumptions  are  obvious.  It  assumes  the  identity  of 
the  Roman  Communion  and  the  Catholic  Church.  It 
excludes  all  the  Oriental  Churches.  Beyond  all  this 
is  its  absolutely  unhistoric  character.  It  is  impossible 
with  regard  for  history  to  claim  that  the  ecumenical 
character  of  the  first  four  Councils  rest  on  papal  consent 
and  approval.  The  ancient  test  of  a  Council's  ecumenical 
and  irreversible  character  was  certainly  acceptance  by 
the  entire  Episcopate.  The  fragment  of  the  Episcopate 
which  happened  to  assemble  in  any  particular  place 
could  not  of  itself  give  complete  representation  to  the 
consciousness  of  the  Universal  Church.  The  endorse 
ment  or  approval  of  the  Roman  Bishop  unquestionably 
added  great  weight ;  but  was  certainly  not  regarded  as 
a  substitute  for  the  authority  which  a  Council  acquired 
from  universal  endorsement  by  the  entire  Episcopate. 
Until  this  acceptance  was  secured,  the  ecumenical 
infallible  character  of  a  Council  must,  of  necessity, 
remain  uncertain.  For  the  Supreme  Council  is  the 
Episcopate.  And  until  the  entire  Episcopate  has  given 
its  assent,  the  Council  has  not  become  a  supreme 
expression  of  the  mind  of  Christendom.  This,  of 
course,  is  what  the  modern  Ultramontanes  would 
not  admit.  It  would  not  agree  with  the  modern  con 
densation  and  embodiment  of  all  authority  in  a  single 
individual  Bishop  at  Rome.  But  it  is  the  doctrine  of 
antiquity,  and  it  is  that  maintained  by  all  the  Oriental 
Churches. 

The  substitution  of  papal  endorsement  for  episcopal 
unanimity  as  the  test  of  an  Ecumenical  Council  can 
only  be  termed  a  tremendous  revolution  in  the  con 
stitution  of  the  Catholic  Church. 


350    THE   INFALLIBILITY   DOCTRINE   [CHAP. 


Ill 

The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  is  no  mere  isolated 
dogma,  separable  from  a  system  without  detriment  to 
the  remainder :  it  is  the  final  conclusion  and  crown  of 
a  theory  of  absolute  authority ;  the  completion  of  a 
whole  process  of  centralisation  of  power  in  the  hands 
and  control  of  a  monarchy.  It  is  significant  to  note 
that  the  three  theories  which  assign  Infallibility  to  the 
Church,  to  the  Episcopate,  to  the  Pope,  are  respectively 
democratic,  aristocratic,  monarchical.  The  Roman 
instinct,  the  Imperial  tendency,  has  shown  itself  in 
grasping,  with  an  undeniable  tenacity  and  grandeur  of 
conception,  the  monarchical  view.  The  whole  drift  of 
Roman  development  for  centuries  had  been  towards 
centralisation.  Power  after  power  became  gradually 
appropriated  and  placed  under  the  exclusive  control  of 
the  central  rule.  Often  this  was  done  with  the  full 
consent,  even  at  the  instigation  of  the  ruled.  It  was 
at  times  prompted  by  their  loyalty  and  devotion.  At 
other  times  it  was  reluctantly  yielded  to  an  authority 
which  men  had  not  the  power  to  resist.  Out  of  all  this 
accumulation  of  prerogatives  a  speculative  theory  of 
primacy  naturally  grew.  Texts  were  quoted  in  defence, 
but  they  are  not  really  the  basis :  nor  is  it  possible  by 
any  rigorous  interpretation  to  derive  the  theory  out  of 
them.  No  mind  which  was  a  stranger  to  the  historic 
Roman  evolution  could  arrive  at  the  Ultramontane 
conclusions.  We  may  take  exposition  of  the  giving 
of  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  as  an  example. 
And  we  quote  it  more  especially  because  Hurter's 
compendium  is  the  seminarist's  guide  par  excellence.  In 
its  theories  thousands  of  the  Roman  priesthood  have 
been,  and  are  being  trained.  The  keys  of  the  kingdom, 


xix.]  OF   AN   INDIVIDUAL  351 

says  Hurter,  signify  authority ;  full  authority  in  the 
matter  which  the  keys  concern.  The  keys  of  a  city, 
consigned  to  a  victor,  symbolise  absolute  control  of 
what  is  therein.  The  keys  of  a  house,  entrusted  to  a 
servant  by  the  master,  make  him  the  dispenser  to  all 
within  the  house.  The  keys  bestowed  on  Peter  signify 
the  full  power  of  jurisdiction  over  the  Universal  Church. 
For  He  who  bestows  them  possesses  all  power  in  heaven 
and  earth.  And  "  whatsoever  "  signifies  power  supreme, 
independent,  universal,  unlimited.  Now  mankind  may 
be  bound  in  three  respects :  law,  sin,  and  penalty. 
Consequently  this  "whatsoever"  must  be  a  promise  of 
plenary  power  of  three  kinds :  legislative,  power  to 
bind ;  judicial,  power  in  regard  to  sin ;  coercive,  power 
to  punish.  Now  such  a  primacy  as  this,  urges  Hurter,1 
not  unnaturally,  requires  Infallibility.  If  the  Roman 
Pontiff  possesses  authority  it  is  in  order  to  secure  unity 
m  the  truth.  If  so,  he  ought  to  possess  the  means  to~ 
that  end.  He  ought  to  have  the  power  to  require  not 
only  external  deference  but  internal  assent  to  his  teach 
ing.  Unless  he  has  this  authority  he  cannot  prevent 
disagreement.  For  where  there  is  no  obligation  to 
assent  there  is  permission  to  disagree.  Moreover,  he 
must  have  authority  universal  over  every  individual. 
Otherwise  how  can  he  maintain  the  Church  in  unity? 
Now  to  do  all  this  he  ought  to  be  infallible.  He  cannot 
require  internal  assent  to  his  teachings  unless  he  is.  He 
cannot  discharge  the  functions  which  Hurter  assigns 
him  without  it.  He  must  possess  an  absolute  final 
irreversible  power  to  define  and  demand  the  submission 
of  conscience,  and  this  entirely  independently  of  the 
Church's  consent. 

So  the  mighty  fabric  becomes  theoretically  complete. 
The  actual  concentration  of  power  at  Rome  requires  to 

1  Hurter,  i.  p.  348. 


352    THE   INFALLIBILITY   DOCTRINE   [CHAP. 

be  justified.  To  justify  it  there  must  be  added  the 
further  endowment  of  Infallibility.  He  ought  to  have 
it,  therefore  he  has.  Can  anything  better  illustrate  the 
craving  after  systematic  completeness  than  this  the  mar 
vellous  construction  of  an  ideal  of  absolute  authority, 
for  which  the  attribute  of  Infallibility  appears  logi 
cally  necessary,  to  make  the  stupendous  system  quite 
complete  ? 

The  relation  of  the  Pope's  Infallibility  to  that  of  the 
entire  Episcopate  has  been  left  by  the  Vatican  Decision 
in  great  confusion.  It  may,  of  course,  be  said  that  time 
has  not  yet  elapsed  sufficient  to  allow  a  proper  readjust 
ment  of  various  truths.  It  appears  to  be  still  acknow 
ledged  that  all  antiquity  is  committed  to  belief  in  the 
Infallibility  of  the  entire  Episcopate,  whether  assembled 
or  dispersed.  It  appears  to  be  also  affirmed  that  the 
Pope  alone  is  infallible  whatever  the  Bishops  may  think, 
If  the  Pope's  authority  can  render  the  minority  infallible, 
what  becomes  of  the  Infallibility  of  the  entire  Episcopate  ? 

The  question  which  Newman  puts  in  the  mouths  of 
the  Irish  Bishops  of  1826  is  greatly  to  the  point: — 

"  How,"  they  would  ask,  "  can  it  ever  come  to  pass 
that  a  majority  of  our  order  should  find  it  their  duty 
to  relinquish  their  prime  prerogative,  and  to  make 
the  Church  take  the  shape  of  a  pure  monarchy?"1 

The  real  effect  of  the  Vatican  Decree  upon  the  entire 
Episcopate  is  to  deprive  them  of  their  prime  prerogative. 
The  Collective  Episcopate  is  not  for  the  modern  Roman 
the  ultimate  voice  of  the  Church.  But  for  the  ancients, 
for  the  contemporaries  of  St  Vincent  of  Lerins,  for 
instance,  this  is  exactly  what  it  was.  The  fierceness  of 
the  struggle  in  the  Vatican  was  due  to  a  consciousness 
that  it  was  a  struggle  for  existence  between  two 
1  Letter  to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p,  13. 


xix.]  OF   AN   INDIVIDUAL  353 

antagonistic  conceptions  of  ecclesiastical  authority — the 
episcopal  and  the  papal.  The  victory  of  absolute 
monarchy  has  reduced  the  Episcopate  to  a  shadow  of 
its  primitive  self.  The  entire  Episcopate  of  the  Roman 
obedience  may  indeed  now  be  assembled  as  listeners  to 
the  one  infallible  voice ;  but  their  prime  prerogative 
has  been  transferred  to  another,  and  lost  to  themselves. 
The  Vatican  Decree  indeed  maintains  the  paradox 
that  exclusive  papal  authority  enhances  that  of  the 
Bishops ;  and,  without  conscious  irony,  appeals  to  the 
language  of  Gregory  the  Great :  "  Then  am  I  truly 
honoured  when  others  are  not  denied  the  honour  due 
to  them."  But  Gregory  said  this  when  repudiating 
a  title  which  would  have  exalted  him  above  his  fellow 
Bishops.  Pius  IX.  repeated  it  precisely  when  assert 
ing  a  prerogative  which  exalts  him  to  a  height  of 
unapproachable  isolation.  Henceforth  the  submissive 
Episcopate  will  accept  what  the  lonely  voice  affirms. 
They  will  add  to  his  Infallibility  the  lustre  of  their 
deference  and  obedience.  But  they  will  add  nothing 
whatever  to  the  intrinsic  character  of  his  decision. 
For,  according  to  the  new  Decree,  he  is  infallible 
independently  of  the  Bishops  and  in  spite  of  them. 
They  may  add,  as  it  has  been  admirably  said,  a  certain 
pomp  and  solemnity  to  the  papal  definitions,  but  they 
can  in  no  wise  affect  their  validity.  "  They  are  but 
as  the  assistants  at  High  Mass,  who  contribute  in  no 
way  to  the  essence  of  the  sacrifice  or  sacrament." x 

When  Papal  Infallibility  is  considered  in  relation  to 
the  Church  at  large  it  is  obvious  that  it  presents  a 
wholly  different  object  for  their  contemplation.  In 
fallibility  viewed  as  residing  in  an  entire  Community,  or 
as  expressed  by  the  entire  Episcopate  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  makes  an  utterly  different  impression  on  the 

1  Lord   Halifax,  Nineteenth  Century  (May  1901),  p.  741. 

Z 


354    THE   INFALLIBILITY  DOCTRINE    [CHAP. 

believing  mind.  There  is  a  certain  vagueness,  an  almost 
impersonal  character,  in  a  distributed  Infallibility,  quite 
different  from  that  embodied  in  a  single  individual. 
This  has  been  admirably  expressed  by  Father  Ryder 
in  a  passage,  which  although  published  three  years 
before  the  Vatican  Council,  has  not  lost  its  force  and 
applicability. 

"  Theologians,"  wrote  Father  Ryder,1  "  would  not  be 
anxious  to  add  the  same  qualifications  when  speaking 
of  the  Church's  Infallibility"  [i.e.,  as  when  speaking  of 
that  of  the  Pope]  "  for  the  obvious  reason  that  though 
as  Ultramontanes  they  might  hold  that  as  regards  pro 
nouncements  de  fide,  the  Pope  was  on  an  equality  with 
the  Church  in  Council,  they  had  no  idea  of  denying 
that  the  Church  possesses  an  Infallibility,  not  merely 
when  she  puts  on  her  robes  of  prophecy  but  inherent 
in  her  very  vital  action,  which  the  Pope  by  himself 
does  not ;  that  as  Perrone  says  .  .  .  clearly  speaking 
of  the  Church  dispersed,  she  is  our  infallible  guide  viva 
voce  et  praxiy  which  the  Pope  is  not ;  that  the  human 
authority  of  the  Church,  founded  on  numbers,  holiness, 
wisdom,  etc.,  being  infinitely  greater  than  the  human 
authority  of  a  Pope,  who  need  be  neither  wise  nor  holy ; 
the  Church  might  settle  without  provoking  doubt,  and 
still  less  opposition,  a  number  of  border  questions, 
which  the  Pope  could  not.  The  Ultramontane 
theologians  had  narrowed  the  base,  so  to  speak,  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  ;  they  had  made  it  centre  in  an 
individual,  subject  to  numberless  accidents  of  individual 
temper  and  circumstance ;  and  therefore  it  was  of  vital 
importance  that  they  should  distinguish  sharply  the 
Divine  from  the  human  element,  the  objects  as  to 
which  they  claimed  for  the  Pope  certain  Infallibility, 
from  those  as  to  which  they  could  not  prove  that 
he  was  not  fallible.  They  had  to  meet  numberless  his 
torical  objections,  plausible  at  least,  grounded  upon 
the  apparent  mispronouncements  of  Popes  in  materid 

]  Idealism  in  Theology. 


xix.]  OF   AN   INDIVIDUAL  355 


eij  and  they  dared  not  undertake  the  defence  of  more 
than  it  was  necessary  for  their  position  to  defend,  or 
than  they  could  defend  satisfactorily."1 

This  passage  draws  out  with  remarkable  force  the 
distinction  between  the  Infallibility  of  an  institution 
and  that  of  an  individual.  It  raises  the  question 
whether  the  two  can  ever  really  be  entirely  identical  in 
scope.  It  therefore  suggests  that  uncertainties  attend 
upon  the  Vatican  statement  of  their  equivalency.  Can 
the  Infallibility  of  a  world-wide  Communion  be  the  same 
as  that  embodied  in  a  single  individual?  Certainly 
in  any  case  the  impression  created  upon  the  devout 
by  the  one  cannot  be  the  same  as  that  created  by  the 
other.  Men  will  inevitably  expect  and  demand  from 
an  individual  Infallibility  what  they  will  never  dream 
of  acquiring  from  a  collective. 

1  Idealism  in  Theology  ',  p.  31. 


CHAPTER   XX 

WHERE  ARE  THE   INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS? 

NEARLY  forty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  recognition 
of  the  Infallibility  of  the  head  of  that  vast  Communion. 
The  dogma  was  pushed  through  admittedly  to  enable 
authority  to  meet  by  the  rapidity  of  its  decisions  the 
speed  of  modern  life.  Authority,  however,  with  admirable 
discretion,  has  not  once  availed  itself  of  its  newly  decreed 
prerogative  within  the  last  fifty  years.  Since  Pius  IX. 
expired,  authority  has  spoken  many  times ;  but  never 
once  on  the  levels  of  unalterable  decree.  Certainly  this 
development  of  history  is  very  different  from  the  future, 
as  the  advocates  of  1870  pictured  it.  The  practical 
utility  of  the  new  Decree  has  been,  if  any,  purely 
retrospective,  historic.  It  applies,  according  to  the 
Roman  theologians,  to  utterances  prior  to  that  decision, 
not  since.  What  the  future  may  produce  it  is  impossible 
to  say.  Whether  a  long  series  of  supreme  irreversible 
pronouncements  are  yet  to  issue,  or  whether  the  supreme 
prerogative  will  be  kept  in  abeyance  is  a  speculative 
enquiry  of  the  greatest  interest. 

It  has  been  the  function  of  Roman  writers,  since  the 
passing  of  the  Vatican  Decree,  to  apply  the  definition 
as  a  test  to  the  papal  utterances  of  nineteen  hundred 
years,  in  order  to  ascertain  which  of  those  utterances 
comply  with  its  requirements,  which  of  those  are 

356 


CHAP,  xx.]  THEORIES   OF  THEOLOGIANS    357 

infallible,  and  which  are  not.  The  prerogative  must, 
of  course,  if  true  to-day  be  true  of  all  the  Christian 
centuries.  Infallibility  must  be  co-extensive  with  the 
existence  of  the  Papacy.  Consequently  the  papal 
utterances  of  all  history  must  be  sifted  and  classified 
in  accordance  with  the  Vatican  Definition.  It  remains 
therefore  for  us  to  ascertain  from  Roman  writers  the 
outcome  of  their  research,  and  to  learn  from  them  upon 
what  precise  occasions  they  consider  that  a  Pope  has 
complied  with  the  conditions  necessary  to  give  his 
pronouncement  this  supreme  unalterable  authority. 


I 

The  conditions  required  to  make  a  papal  utterance 
infallible  are  variously  described.  Bishop  Fessler,  who 
as  Secretary  of  the  Vatican  Council,  may  be  presumed, 
as  being  the  Pope's  selection,  to  have  understood  the 
papal  mind,  and  whose  position  indisputably  afforded 
him  peculiar,  if  not  unique,  advantages,  has  laid  it  down 
that  the  tests  of  an  infallible  papal  utterance  are  two. 
The  first  is  that  the  subject-matter  must  be  a  doctrine 
of  faith  or  morals;  the  second,  that  the  Pope  must 
express  his  intention,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  teaching 
power,  of  declaring  this  particular  doctrine  a  component 
part  of  the  truth  necessary  to  salvation  revealed  by 
God,  and  as  such  to  be  held  by  the  whole  Church.  This 
was  Secretary  Fessler's  declaration l  almost  immediately 
after  the  Decision,  and  published  expressly  to  reassure 
and  conciliate  the  alarmed  and  offended. 

More  usually  in  recent  Roman  theological  works  the 
conditions  are  somewhat  more  elaborately  analysed  as 
being  four  in  number. 

1  Fessler,  True  and  false  Infallibility  %  p.  51. 


358    WHERE  INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS?  [CHAP. 

1.  First,  as  concerns   the   utterer.      He   must  speak 
as   Pope,  and  not  as  a  theologian.     That  is  he  must 
exercise  his  supreme  authority  over  Christians. 

2.  Secondly,  as  to  the  substance  of  the  utterance.     It 
must  be  a  doctrine  of  faith  or  morals. 

3.  Thirdly,  concerning  the  form  of  the  utterance.     It 
must  not  be  merely  advice  or  warning,  but  dogmatic 
definition.     It   must   definitely   intend   to   terminate  a 
controversy,  and  to  pronounce  a  final  sentence  upon  it. 

4.  Finally,  as  to  the  recipients.     While  it  need  not 
necessarily  be  addressed  to  all  believers,  and  may  indeed 
be  directed  to  a  single  individual,  yet  it  must  be  virtually 
intended  for  every  member  of  the  Universal  Church  ; 
because  it  is  defining  something  essential  to  be  believed. 

These  four  restrictions  which  appear  to  be  generally 
acknowledged  more  or  less  by  Roman  writers,  are 
obviously  very  powerful  sifters  of  papal  decrees.  They 
exclude  wholesale  entire  classes  of  papal  utterances 
from  possessing  any  sort  of  claim  to  the  supreme 
authority. 

Thus,  for  example,  one  theologian  says : — 

"  Neither  in  conversation,  nor  in  discussion,  nor  in 
interpreting  Scripture  or  the  Fathers,  nor  in  consulting, 
nor  in  giving  his  reasons  for  the  point  which  he  has 
defined,  nor  in  answering  letters,  nor  in  private  delibera 
tions,  supposing  he  is  setting  forth  his  own  opinion,  is 
the  Pope  infallible." l 

Fessler  himself  excludes  from  the  range  of  Infallibility  : 
papal  actions  in  general,  for  actions  are  not  utterances ; 
all  that  the  Popes  have  said  in  daily  life ;  books  of 
which  they  may  be  the  authors ;  ordinary  letters ; 
utterances  of  Popes  either  to  individuals  or  to  the  whole 
Church,  even  in  their  solemn  rescripts,  made  by  virtue 

1  Billuart,  ii.  p.  no. 


xx.]       THEORIES   OF  THEOLOGIANS        359 

of  their  supreme  power  of  jurisdiction  in  issuing  dis 
ciplinary  laws  or  judicial  decrees.  None  of  these, 
according  to  Bishop  Fessler,  are  dogmatic  papal 
definitions  or  utterances  of  infallible  authority.1 

Newman  appears  to  have  thought  that  Fessler's 
tendency  was  to  underrate  the  Vatican  Decree. 

"  Theological  language,"  .wrote  Newman,  "  like  legal, 
is  scientific,  and  cannot  be  understood  without  the 
knowledge  of  long  precedent  and  tradition,  nor  without 
the  comments  of  theologians.  Such  comments  time 
alone  can  give  us.  Even  now  Bishop  Fessler  has  toned 
down  the  newspaper  interpretations  (Catholic  and 
Protestant)  of  the  words  of  the  Council,  without  any 
hint  from  the  Council  itself  to  sanction  him  in 
doing  so."2 

Newman,  however,  did  not  apparently  consider 
Fessler's  statements  just  quoted  as  a  case  of  under 
estimation,  for  in  the  following  year  he  himself  gave 
a  similar  restriction  of  the  range  of  Infallibility. 

"  Even  when  the  Pope  is  in  the  Cathedra  Petri,  his 
words  do  not  necessarily  proceed  from  his  Infallibility. 
He  has  no  wider  prerogative  than  a  Council,  and  of  a 
Council  Perrone  says :  '  Councils  are  not  infallible  in 
the  reasons  by  which  they  are  led,  or  on  which  they 
rely  in  making  their  definition,  nor  in  matters  which 
relate  to  persons,  nor  to  physical  matters  which  have 
no  necessary  connection  with  dogma.' 

"  Supposing  a  Pope  has  quoted  the  so-called  works 
of  the  Areopagite  as  if  really  genuine,  there  is  no  call  on 
us  to  believe  him  ;  nor,  again,  when  he  condemned 
Galileo's  Copernicanism,  unless  the  earth's  immobility 
has  a  'necessary  connection  with  some  dogmatic  truth,' 
which  the  present  bearing  of  the  Holy  See  towards  that 
philosophy  virtually  denies."  s 

1  Fessler,  p.  65.          2  Letter  in  1874.     Life  of  De  Lisle,  ii.  p.  42, 
3  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  pp.  115,  116. 


360  WHERE  INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS?    [CHAP. 

"And  again  his  Infallibility  is  not  called  into 
exercise  unless  he  speaks  to  the  whole  world  ;  for  if 
his  precepts,  in  order  to  be  dogmatic,  must  enjoin 
what  is  necessary  to  salvation,  they  must  be  neces 
sary  for  all  men.  Accordingly  .  .  .  orders  to  particular 
countries  or  classes  of  men  have  no  claim  to  be  the 
utterances  of  his  Infallibility."1 

This  treatment  of  the  Vatican  Decree  is  an  exercise 
of  what  Newman  calls  "  the  principle  of  minimising," 
which  he  considers  "  so  necessary  for  a  wise  and  cautious 
theology."2 

A  still  further  condition  is  introduced  by  Newman 
to  qualify  the  character  of  papal  decisions.  There  is 
the  doctrine  of  intention.  The  Pope,  urges  Newman, 

"  could  not  fulfil  the  above  conditions  of  an  ex  cathedra 
utterance  if  he  did  not  actually  mean  to  fulfil  them.  .  .  . 
What  is  the  worth  of  a  signature  if  a  man  does  not  con 
sider  what  he  is  signing  ?  The  Pope  cannot  address  his 
people  East  and  West,  North  and  South,  without  mean 
ing  it ;  ...  nor  can  he  exert  his  apostolical  authority 
without  knowing  that  he  is  doing  so ;  nor  can  he  draw 
up  a  form  of  words  and  use  care,  and  make  an  effort 
in  doing  so  accurately,  without  intention  to  do  so." 

Newman  himself  applied  this  principle  of  intention 
to  the  case  of  Honorius. 

"  And  therefore  no  words  of  Honorius  proceeded 
from  his  prerogative  of  infallible  teaching,  which  were 
not  accompanied  with  the  intention  of  exercising  that 
prerogative."  3 

That,  of  course,  must  apply  to  every  individual  for 
whom  the  infallible  prerogative  is  claimed.  The 

1  Newman,  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  120. 

2  Ibid.  p.  120. 
8  Ibid.  p.  1 08. 


xx.]       THEORIES   OF  THEOLOGIANS        361 

classification  of  papal  utterances  is  accordingly  involved 
in  the  doctrine  of  intention.  It  will  be  necessary  in 
every  case  to  ascertain  what  the  Pope's  intentions  were. 
Now  of  all  intricate  and  desperately  difficult  problems 
none  surpass  the  doctrine  of  intention.  No  wonder 
then  if  there  will  be  discordant  verdicts  among  the 
theologians,  and  a  large  element  of  insecurity. 


II 

Following  upon  this  analysis  of  the  theoretical  con 
ditions  requisite  for  infallible  utterances  comes  the 
practical  enquiry,  to  what  particular  papal  decrees  do 
these  conditions  really  apply?  Upon  what  precise 
occasions  did  the  Pope  bestow  upon  the  Church  the 
advantages  of  his  Infallibility?  This  is  a  question 
upon  which  theologians  are  much  more  reticent.  They 
deal  at  considerable  length  with  the  necessary  con 
ditions  which  such  an  utterance  would  require,  but 
many  among  them  refrain  from  all  practical  application. 
They  do  not  indicate  which  among  the  immense 
collections  of  papal  documents  really  possesses  this 
supreme  distinction.  Newman,  indeed,  says  that  the 
Pope  "has  for  centuries  upon  centuries  had  and  used 
that  authority  which  the  Definition  now  declares  ever 
to  have  belonged  to  him." x  According  to  this  assertion 
the  Pope  has  not  only  possessed  this  power,  but  "  used 
it."  The  implication  appears  to  be  that  since  he  has 
possessed  it  for  centuries  upon  centuries  he  has  used 
it  frequently.  Newman,  however,  quotes  with  approval 
the  statement  that  "  the  Papal  Infallibility  is  com 
paratively  seldom  brought  into  action."2  Indeed,  he 
himself  observes : — 

1  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  128.  8  Ibid.  p.  125. 


362  WHERE  INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS?    [CHAP. 

"  Utterances  which  must  be  received  as  coming  from 
an  Infallible  Voice  are  not  made  every  day,  indeed 
they  are  very  rare ;  and  those  which  are  by  some 
persons  affirmed  or  assumed  to  be  such,  do  not  always 
turn  out  what  they  are  said  to  be."  l 

Fessler  again  speaks  of  "the  form  .  .  .  which  the 
Pope  usually  adopts  when  he  delivers  a  solemn  definition 
de  fide'' 2  And  yet  the  result  of  his  application  of  the 
tests  of  an  infallible  utterance  is  that  he  "finds  only 
a  few."3 

To  be  still  more  precise.  There  is  no  unanimity  as 
to  occasions  when  an  infallible  decree  was  given.  Many 
writers  on  Infallibility  give  no  list  at  all.  Those  who 
attempt  it  differ  widely,  but  agree  in  regarding  them 
as  excessively  few.  The  Secretary  of  the  Vatican 
Council  tells  us  that  he  found  only  a  few,  but  he  did 
not  tell  us  which  they  are.  This  is  perfectly  intelligible. 
He  wrote  in  the  same  year  in  which  the  Decree  was 
made,  and  certainly  there  had  been  no  time  to  investigate 
or  apply  the  tests  with  any  assurance  of  accuracy ;  and 
it  was  most  prudent  and  commendable  not  to  attempt 
the  dangerous  task  of  committing  himself  to  a  definite 
list  which  might  sooner  or  later  have  been  overthrown. 
As  Newman  said  :  "  Those  which  are  by  some  persons 
affirmed  or  assumed  to  be  such,  do  not  always  turn 
out  what  they  are  said  to  be."  More  recent  writers 
have  felt  themselves  justified  by  lapse  of  time  in 
indicating  which  the  infallible  utterances  are.  Whether 
on  Roman  principles  the  time  has  really  come  for 
indicating  them  with  any  confidence  may  be  open  to 
question.  The  varieties  in  the  lists  would  seem  to 
suggest  a  negative.  They  appear  to  vary  from  eight 

1  Letter  to  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  81. 
2  Fessler,  p.  92.  3  Ibid.  p.  53. 


xx.]        THEORIES   OF   THEOLOGIANS        363 

instances  down  to  one.  Of  course  the  compilers  of 
the  lists  may  contend  that  their  researches  are  not 
yet  completed.  The  investigation  of  utterances  extend 
ing  over  well-nigh  two  thousand  years  may  well  require 
considerable  time.  The  judgment  may  be  regarded 
as  still  in  suspense.  But  so  far  as  lists  are  given  us 
they  vary  within  the  limits  already  stated. 

Cardinal  Franzelin,  writing  in  1875,  gives  some 
examples  of  utterances  whose  Infallibility  he  regards 
as  certain.  They  are  four  in  number. 

1.  The   Dogmatic    Constitutions   of    the   Council   of 
Constance    against    Wiclif    and     Hus,    confirmed     by 
Martin  V. 

2.  The    Constitution    exsurge    of    Leo    X.    against 
Luther. 

3.  The    Constitution   of    Clement    XI.    against    the 
Jansenists — the  Bull   Unigenitus. 

4.  The    Constitution    Auctorem    Fidei   of    Pius    VI. 
against    the    Synod    of  Pistoia ;     wherein    many    pre 
positions    are    condemned    with    various    degrees    of 
censure. 

Franzelin  by  no  means  limits  Infallibility  to  these 
four  utterances.  But  these  are  all  that  he  gives  as 
illustrations  of  its  exercise.  And  of  these  he  says  with 
perfect  confidence :  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  any  Catholic 
to  deny  that  these  are  infallible  definitions."1 

A  more  recent  writer,  Lucien  Choupin,2  repeats 
Franzelin's  list,  and  gives  four  other  utterances  in 
addition : — 

1.  The  Decree  of  the  Immaculate  Conception. 

2.  The  Dogma  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

Pius  IX.  is  affirmed  to  have  infallibly  decreed  his 
own  Infallibility. 

1  Franzelin,  De  Traditione,  p.  123. 

2  Vakur  des  Decisions  Doctrinales  et  Disdplinaires  du  Saint-Silgt  (1908). 


364   WHERE  INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS?  [CHAP. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  Choupin's  two  chief  instances 
belong  to  the  pontificate  of  Pius  IX.  Historical  research 
enables  the  same  writer  to  add  two  more. 

3.  The   condemnation   of    the    five    propositions    of 
Jansen  by  Innocent  X.  in  1653. 

4.  The  Constitution  of  Benedict  XII.  in  1336. 

This  last  affirms  that  departed  saints  who  need  no 
further  cleansing  possess  an  immediate  intuitive  vision 
of  the  divine  nature.1 

To  these  many  theologians,  says  Choupin,  add  the 
Encyclical  Quanta  Cura  of  Pius  IX.  in  1864. 

On  the  other  hand,  Carson  in  his  Reunion  Essays 
says : — 

"  These  four  conditions  so  narrow  the  extent  of  the 
Petrine  prerogative  that  it  is  difficult  to  point  with 
certainty  to  more  than  one,  or  at  most  two,  papal 
pronouncements,  and  declare  them,  with  the  consent 
of  all,  to  be  infallible. 

"  The  Bull  Ineffabilis  Deus,  defining  the  Immaculate 
Conception,  may  be  considered,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
be  a  definition  of  doctrine  about  whose  Infallibility 
there  cannot  well  be  any  question.  The  tome  of  Pope 
Leo  the  Great  on  the  Incarnation,  sent  by  him  to 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  accepted  by  the  assembled 
fathers  as  the  echo  of  Peter's  voice,  may  perhaps  be 
placed  on  the  same  footing.  Beyond  these  two  ecu 
menical  utterances  on  points  of  doctrine,  we  cannot 
assert  with  any  assurance  that  the  prerogative  of  Papal 
Infallibility  has  been  exercised  from  the  day  of  Pente 
cost  to  the  present  time."  2 

Certainly  if  the  intrinsic  value  of  a  document  be 
any  witness  to  its  Infallibility  no  papal  utterance  has 
better  claim  to  be  an  instance  of  that  stupendous 
prerogative  than  the  famous  letter  of  Leo  the  Great 

1  Denzinger,  Encheiridior,  §  456.      2  Carson's  Reunion  Essays,  p.  91. 


xx.]       THEORIES   OF    THEOLOGIANS        365 

to  Flavian.  But  yet  some  theologians  omit  it  from 
their  list  of  Infallibility,  and  here  a  writer  who  inserts 
it  as  one  of  two  can  only  do  so  with  a  hesitating 
"  perhaps."  Remembering  the  theological  defences  of 
Leo's  letter  we  can  see  the  reason  for  this  uncertainty. 
Theologians  have  felt  themselves  constrained  by  the 
historic  facts  to  admit  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
examined  the  contents  of  Leo's  letter,  and,  that  having 
satisfied  themselves  of  its  character,  they  then  proceeded 
to  endorse  it,  and  to  declare  that  Peter  spoke  by  Leo. 
But  this  procedure  is  not  thinkable  in  the  case  of  an 
infallible  document.  Accordingly  it  was  supposed  that 
Leo  never  meant  to  speak  infallibly,  but  only  to  suggest 
the  lines  upon  which  the  Council  should  proceed.  But 
this  defence  removed  the  letter  from  the  region  of 
inerrable  authority.  Hence  the  most  that  could  be 
said  about  it  was  a  mere  perhaps. 

The  question  has  to  be  faced,  What  authority  do  these 
lists  of  infallible  utterances  possess  ?  They  possess  the 
authority  of  the  various  theologians  who  have  compiled 
them.  But  they  possess  no  more  than  that  authority. 
No  infallible  list  of  infallible  utterances  has  yet  appeared. 
And  surely  whatever  theories  men  may  invent,  it  must 
still  be  true  that  the  only  final  way  to  determine  whether 
a  papal  utterance  be  infallible  is  whether  it  has  secured 
the  consent  of  the  Church. 

It  is,  of  course,  acknowledged  by  Roman  writers, 
that  after  a  careful  application  of  the  four  tests  it  may 
still  be  disputed,  and  still  remain  uncertain  whether 
the  particular  utterance  is  or  is  not  a  case  of  Infallibility. 
In  this  event  the  rule  must  be  that,  so  long  as  any 
uncertainty  exists,  after  serious  enquiry,  there  is  no 
infallible  decision.1  Fessler,  however,  adds  that  where 
uncertainty  remains,  the  subordinate  authorities  will 

1  Hurter,  i.  p.  407. 


366  WHERE  INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS?    [CHAP. 

ask  the  highest  authority  what  his  intention  was  in 
such  an  utterance,  If  the  utterer  expires  before  answer 
ing,  Fessler  does  not  inform  us  what  the  enquirer  is 
to  do.  Is  a  subsequent  Pope  an  infallible  judge  of 
his  predecessor's  intentions?  This  we  are  not  told. 
Fessler's  translator,  however,  adds  a  remark  of  con 
siderable  importance. 

"  Of  course  Bishop  Fessler  is  here  understood  as 
meaning  that  this  fresh  explanation  of  the  definition 
must  be  provided  with  all  the  marks  which  are  necessary 
to  prove  the  presence  of  a  real  definition." 


Ill 

Our  study  of  the  subject  may  be  closed  with  a  few 
reflections. 

What  impresses  us  perhaps  chiefly  is  the  meagreness 
of  the  result.  Upon  this  point  Newman  observed : — 

"  It  has  been  objected  to  the  explanation  I  have 
given  ...  of  the  nature  and  range  of  the  Pope's  Infalli 
bility  as  now  a  dogma  of  the  Church,  that  it  was  a 
lame  and  impotent  conclusion  of  the  Council,  if  so  much 
effort  was  employed  as  is  involved  in  the  convocation 
and  sitting  of  an  Ecumenical  Council  in  order  to  do 
so  little.  True  if  it  were  called  to  do  what  it  did  and 
no  more  ;  but  that  such  was  its  aim  is  a  mere  assumption. 
In  the  first  place  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  there 
were  those  in  the  Council  who  were  desirous  of  a 
stronger  definition  ;  and  the  definition  actually  made,  as 
being  moderate,  is  so  far  the  victory  of  those  many 
bishops  who  considered  any  definition  on  the  subject 
inopportune.  And  it  was  no  slight  point  of  the  pro 
ceedings  in  the  Council,  if  a  definition  was  to  be,  to 
have  effected  a  moderate  definition.  But  the  true 
answer  to  the  objection  is  that  which  is  given  by  Bishop 
Ullathorne.  The  question  of  the  Pope's  Infallibility 


xx.]  CONCLUSION  367 

was  not  one  of  the  objects  professed  in  condemning  the 
Council ;  and  the  Council  is  not  yet  ended." l 

The  moderate  character  of  the  Definition  which 
Newman  notes  is  indeed  conspicuous,  when  compared 
with  the  extravagant  statements  of  Manning  and  Ward, 
of  Veuillot  and  the  Univers. 

An  Infallibility,  whose  range  is  possibly  limited  to 
one  solitary  utterance  in  nineteen  hundred  years,  is 
very  different  from  the  ideal  of  perpetual  irreversible 
decisions  of  almost  daily  occurrence  as  described  by 
Ward.  Very  different  also  from  rapid  termination  of 
controversies  which  Manning  considered  so  necessary 
to  our  progressive  age.  And  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  the  decision,  although  at  first  accepted  by  the 
Extremists  with  the  wildest  joy,  was  on  maturer 
reflection  viewed  with  considerable  disappointment. 

But  this  moderation  has  recently  been  viewed  as  a  sign 
of  truth.  Certainly  Manning  would  never  have  argued 
that  it  was.  A  via  media  between  two  extremes,  upheld 
as  ideal,  would  have  been,  indeed  it  was,  Manning's 
detestation. 

And  if  the  Vatican  Decree  is  moderate  relatively  to 
a  school  of  extravagance,  it  is  no  less  stupendous 
relatively  to  a  school  of  antiquity.  Judged  by  the 
conceptions  of  St  Vincent  of  Lerins  the  dogma  is  not 
moderate,  it  is  most  extreme.  If  some  who  anticipated 
and  feared  something  much  more  pronounced  acquiesced 
in  the  actual  dogma  with  comparative  relief,  a  very 
different  estimate  will  be  formed  by  those  whose 
standard  of  moderation  is  the  doctrine  of  antiquity. 

If  the  total  advantage  hitherto  reaped  from  Papal 
Infallibility  be  compared  with  that  which  the  Church 
has  gained  from  its  Ecumenical  Councils,  the  balance 

1  Newman's  Letter  to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  p.  154. 


368  WHERE  INFALLIBLE  DECISIONS?  [CHAP. 

is  heavily  on  the  side  of  the  more  ancient  method 
of  ascertaining  and  formulating  Christian  tradition. 
Whatever  the  solitary  Infallible  Voice  may  pronounce 
in  the  future,  it  has  done  exceedingly  little  in  the  past, 
even  on  Roman  estimates.  Those  who  consider  the 
Immaculate  Conception  the  only  instance  of  an  irre 
versible  papal  decision  can  scarcely  deny  that  no  com 
parison  exists  between  this  and  the  work  of  the  Council 
of  Nicaea.  This  is,  of  course,  no  argument  against  its 
truth.  It  is  not  for  a  moment  produced  with  that 
design.  But  it  is  an  argument  against  the  value  of 
numerous  pretexts  which  instigated  many  of  the  most 
influential  personages  who  helped  to  push  this  doctrine 
through.  It  shows  that  they  were  controlled  by 
totally  erroneous  conceptions.  It  shows  much  more 
than  this.  The  familiar  controversial  statements  that 
the  early  Popes  could  not  have  spoken  as  they  did, 
had  they  not  been  conscious  that  they  possessed  Infalli 
bility,  and  a  right  accordingly  to  demand  unconditional 
interior  submission,  and  intellectual  assent,  are  shown 
by  Roman  interpretation  of  the  Vatican  Dogma  to  be 
absolutely  valueless.  And  all  this  shows  that  a  pro 
found  confusion  has  existed  in  Roman  minds  between 
Authority  and  Infallibility.  If  this  distinction  had  been 
sharply  realised,  many  of  the  arguments  by  which  the 
doctrine  was  unsupported  could  never  have  been 
employed. 

The  meagreness  of  the  issue  is  in  curious  contrast 
with  the  magnitude  of  the  battle,  and  the  tremendous 
character  of  the  affirmation.  The  question  can  hardly 
be  evaded,  Was  it  really  in  the  Church's  interest  to 
impose  belief  in  a  prerogative  whose  exercise  is 
admittedly  so  uncertain?  Is  it  permissible  to  be  a 
Roman  Catholic  while  affirming  that  Papal  Infallibility 
has  never  yet  been  exercised?  If  it  is,  Where  is  the 


xx.]  CONCLUSION  369 

dogmatic  gain  ?  If  it  is  not,  Where  are  the  indisputable 
decisions?  And  what  is  its  practical  utility?  Its 
strongest  advocates,  as  Manning,  so  Roman  writers 
themselves  affirm,  viewed  the  subject  rather  as  states 
men  than  as  theologians.  They  upheld  it,  not  so 
much  for  theoretic  completeness,  as  because  it  would 
strengthen  the  Church's  resources,  and  enable  it  the 
better  to  meet  the  age.  And  yet  the  prerogative  has 
never  since  been  utilised. 

The  practical  effect  so  far  has  been  to  alienate  more 
grievously  than  ever  the  separated  Churches  of  the 
East.  Was  this  in  the  real  interests  of  Christendom  ? 
It  may  be  that,  somewhat  exhausted  by  this  terrific 
strife,  authority  is  recruiting  itself,  and  will  some  day 
utilise  its  new  prerogative  with  tremendous  results ; 
that  it  is  meanwhile  treasuring  up  its  new  resources 
against  a  day  of  need.  But  so  far  as  the  historic 
development  has  hitherto  advanced,  it  is  a  theoretic 
rather  than  a  practical  victory.  It  possesses  all  the 
intellectual  problems  of  a  new,  precarious,  and  bewilder 
ing  dogma,  without  the  practical  gains  of  a  prerogative 
manifestly  and  constantly  utilised  in  the  service  of 
mankind. 


2  A 


INDEX 


ACTON,   Lord,   70,  117  and  sqq., 

326  and  sqq. 
Agatho,  34,  38,  40,  42 
Alexander  V.,  59,  60 
Alzog,  315 
American     Presbyterians,    attitude 

of,  222 

Anglican  Church,  attitude  of,  223 
Antonelli,  Cardinal,   159,   163  and 

sqq.,    190,    249,    254,    259,  292, 
,320 
A  priori  and  &  posteriori  methods, 

343 
basis    of    Papal    Infallibility, 

351  and  sqq, 
Aquinas,  St  Thomas,   30,    51   and 

sqq. 
Articles   (Four)    of    1682,   89  and 

sqq-,  93 

Augustine.  St,  17,  18,  19,  20,  173, 
247 

Authority  in  the  Church,  mon 
archical  theory  of,  72,  350  and 
sqq.  ;  two  theories  of,  64,  66, 


Benedict  XIII.,  claims  to  be  above 

appeal,  57 
Bergier's     Theological   Dictionary, 

H7 

Bertin,  81 

Bona,  Cardinal,  36 

Bossuet,  8,  20  and  sqq.,  26,  28,  29, 
38  and  sqq.,  53,  57,  62  and 
sqq->  70,  73>  85  and  sqq.  His 
sermon  on  Unity,  86  and  sqq.  ; 
Defence  of  the  Declaration,  93 
and  sqq.  ;  Exposition,  96,  107 

Botalla,  12,  19 

Butler,  Charles,  loo,  101 

CATHERINE  of  Sienna,  56 
Cecconi,  185,  186,  190,  197,  277 
Chrismann,  201 
Church.    See  Authority,  Infallibility 

of      the      Church,      Episcopate, 

Tradition 
Civilta   Cattolica,   the,     164,    165, 

169,  184 
Clement  VII.,  56  and  sqq. 


269,  288  ;  seat  of  Authority,  the  i  XI.,  92,  93 

Church,  81,    83,    94,    95,    108,  j  Clifford,  Bishop,  227,  245,  271 

109,     156,    173,    192    and    sqq.,  j  Lord,  IO2 

206,   269,    288,    315,    346.     See  Commission    of    Suggestions,    251 


also      Infallibility     of     Church, 
Episcopate,  Vincent  of  Lerins. 


BAINE'S  Defence,  101 

Baronius,  28,  37,  60 

Barral,  8 

Basle,    Council  of,    alluded   to   by 

Bossuet,  95 
Bellarmine,  7,  9,  12,    18,   28,    29, 

38  and    sqq.,   60   and  sqq. ,    72 


and  sqq.,  168,  263 


and  sqq. 
Constance,    Council    of,    60,    61  ; 

alluded   to    by    Bertin,    81  ;    by 

Richer,  83  ;  by  Bossuet,  91,  95  ; 

by  Darboy,  265 

Constitution  on  Procedure,  230 
Council,  28-31,  33-40,  42,  45,  59- 

66,  74,  77,  83,  95,  348  and  sqq.  ; 

authority  of,  58,  74 
Cyprian,  St,  14  and  sqq. 
Cyrus,    Patriarch    of     Alexandria, 


32-34,  43 


371 


372 


INDEX 


DARBOY,    Archbishop,     157    and 
sqq.,    187,    265   and    sqq.t    271, 
292  and  sqq. 
Dam,  Count,  249,  250 
Dechamps,  Archbishop,  165 
Defence     of   the   Declaration ,  93, 

94 

Delahogue,  107 
Development,     theory     of,     287  ; 

development    and     immutability 

of  the  Faith,  24  and  sqq.,  205 
Dieringer,  191 
Dollinger,  8,    188    and  sqq.,   209, 

210,  232  and  sqq, ,  316  and  sqq. 
Dupanloup,  Bishop,   154  and  sqq., 

162    and    sqq.,     169    and    sqq., 

271,  272,  295 

ECUMENICAL  COUNCILS,   De 

Maistre's    depreciation    of,    148 

and  sqq. 

Ecumenicity,  test  of,  348  and  sqq. 
Episcopate,  15,  28,  29,  31,  50,  64, 

66,     173,    244,    346    and    sqq.  ; 

Bossuet  on,  87,  95 
Errington,  Bishop,  104,  105 
Eugenius  IV.,  alluded  to  by  Bossuet, 

91 

FAITH,  nature  of,  4 
Faith  of  Catholics,  the,  106 
Fenelon,   theory  on  temporal  and 

spiritual  power,  49 
Fessler,    277    and    sqq.,    289,    357 

and  sqq.,  362,  365 
Flavian,  Leo's  letter  to,  28,  29 
Florence,  Council  of,  83 
Franzelin.,  25 
Friedrich,  210  and  sqq.,  318,  321 

GALILEO,  180,  359 

Gallicanism,  134,  146,  157 

Gallitzin,  no 

Gasquet,  Abbot,  117 

Gelasius,  21,  22 

German  Protestants,  attitude  of,  221 

Gerson,  Chancellor,  58,  73 

Gosselin,  49,  50 

Gratry,  8,  13,  19,  20,  54,  177,  179. 

296  and  sqq. 
Gregory  VII.,  49 
XII.,  57  and  sqq. 


Gregory  the  Great  v.  Papal  Infalli 
bility,  353 
Guibert,  Archbishop,  251  andjy^., 

295 

Gladstone,  101 

HADRIAN  VI.,  65,  73 
Hasenclever,  314  and  sqq. 
Haynald,  Archbishop,  273 
Hefele,  Bishop,  26,  37,  43  and;??., 

191,  202,  241,  271,  277,  307  and 

sqq. 
Hohenlohe,  Cardinal,  208  and^f., 

303 
,  Prince,  207  and  sqq.,  305  and 

sqq. 
Honorius,  22,  32,  33,  35  and  sqq., 

39  and  sqq.,  46,  134,  168,  360;  De 

Maistre  on,  150;  Gratry  on,  179 
Hurter,  346  and  sqq. 
Husenbeth,  101 

IMMACULATE  Conception,  229, 
248,  255 

Implicit  and  explicit  truth,  25 

Infallibility,  not  conferred  on  St 
Peter,  7,  8 ;  Infallibility  and 
authority,  9,  15,  17;  Infallibility 
of  the  Church,  77,  94,  no,  in, 
115,  1 68  and  sqq.,  343.  See 
Authority 

,  Papal,  21,  42  ;  works  out  as 

Infallibility  of  the  Church,  77, 
94;  officially  denied  in  Lyons 
and  Rouen,  97  ;  by  English 
Roman  Catholics  of  eighteenth 
century,  100;  by  Faith  of 
Catholics,  106;  nature  of  Infalli 
bility,  340  and  sqq.,  conditions  of 
its  exercise,  357  and  sqq.,  cf.  n  ; 
parallel  drawn  between  dogma 
of  Christ's  Divinity  and  that  of  In 
fallibility,  113  and  sqq  \  doctrine 
of  intention,  360,  361 

,  Carson's  list  of  Infallible 

utterances,  364 

,  Choupin's  list,  363 

,  Franzelin's  list,  363 

and  the  Council  of  Trent,  70 ; 

the  question  not  mentioned  at 
beginning  of  the  Vatican  Council, 
232,  238 


INDEX 


373 


Infallibility,     Romanist    utterances 
on : — 

Acton,  327  and  sqq.,  333 
Aquinas,  30,  51  and  sqq. 
Baine,  101 
Bellarmine,  73 
Bossuet,  89  and  sqq. 
Butler,  101 
Clifford,  102,  245 
Council  of  Constance,  60,  61 
Darboy,  161,  265,  266,  292 
Dechamps,  165 
Delahogue,  107 
Dollinger,  320  and  sqq. 
Dupanloup,  162,  170  and  sqq. 
Gallitzin,  no 
Gratry,  179  and  sqq. 
Gregory  the  Great,  353 
Guibert,  251  and  sqq. 
Hadrian  VI.,  65,  84 
Hefele,  204,  212,  241,  307 
Janus,  193 

Keenarfs  Catechism ,  in  and  sqq. 
Kenrick,  247,  302 
Khayath,  213,  215 
Krautheimer,  201 
Liebermann,  200 
De  Lisle,  108 
Luzerne,  146 
Maret,  167  and  sqq. 
Melchers,  241,  311 
Milner,  no 
Munich,  Theological  Faculty  of, 

199 

Murray,  115,  116 
Newman,  282  and  sqq.,  359  and 

sqq. 

Pie,  255 
Purcell,  246 
Ryder,  3  54  and  sqq. 
Schulte,  289 
Sorbonne,  58 

Torquemada,  77  ;  cf.  94,  108 
Veron,  84 
Wurtzburg,    Theological  Faculty 

of,  198,  199 

INNOCENT  I.,  19 

Intention,  doctrine  of,  360,  361 

Iremeus,  St,  II  and  sqq. 

JANUS,  27,  54,   182,   192,    193;  I 
Dublin  Review  on,  195 


Jerome,  St,  20,  21 
John  IV.,  33 
XXIII.,  60 


KEEN  AN' s  Catechism,  1 1 1  and  sqq. 
Kenrick,   Archbishop,    8,    18,    27, 

247,   271,  300  and  sqq. 
Ketteler,  Bishop,  240,  269 
Khayath,  Bishop,  213  and  sqq. 
Krautheimer,  201 

LACORDAIRE,  154 
Lamennais,  153,  169 
Langen,  313 
Legouve,  299,  300 
Leo  II.,  35,  38,  40 

XIII.,  15 

the  Great,  364,  365 

Letters,   three,  issued  by  Pius  IX. 
before  the  Council,  220  and  sqq. 
Liber  Ditirnus,  35,  36 
Liberius,  20/21,  22 
Liebermann,  200  and  sqq. 
Liguori,  323 

Lisle,  A.  P.  de,  108,  109,  286,  287 
Lorraine,  Cardinal  de,  69 
Luzerne,  Cardinal,  145  and  sqq. 

MAISTRE,  Joseph  de,  147  and  sqq.  ; 

Lenormant  on,  153 
Manning,    104  and   sqq.,    133   and 

sqq.,  232 
Maret,   Bishop,  8,    12,   13,   19,  26, 

152,  167,  256,  271,  293 
Martin  I.,  34,  38 

V. ,  60  and  sqq. 

Melchers,  241,  311 
Melchior,  Cano,  30,  53 
Milner's    End   of    Religious    Con 
troversy,  109 
Monothelite    heresy,    32,    33    and 

sqq. 
Montalembert,    154,   178,   183  and 

sqq.,  198 
Murray's     Tractatus     de     Ecclesia 

Christi,  115,  116 

NAPOLEON  and  reconstruction  of 
French  Episcopate,  143  and  sqq. 

III.,  250 

Newman,  130  and  sqq.,  177,  226, 
280  and  sqq.,  348,  359  and  sqq,, 
366 


374 


INDEX 


New    Regulations,    the,    253    and 

sqq. 
Nicea,    Canon    of,    on    Episcopal 

consecration,  69 

ORIENTAL  Churches,   attitude  of, 

221 

Orsi,  Cardinal,  94 

PASTOR,  56,  57 

Patrizzi,  Cardinal,  252  and  sqq. 

Paul,  St,  5,  12,  16,  20 

Perron,  Cardinal  du,  80  and  sqq.) 

107 

Perrone,  12,  19,  20 
Peter,   St,  2  and  sqq.,  12,   14,   16, 

17,  67,  68,  72,  75,  86,  87,   167, 

1 68,  244 

Pie,  Bishop,  255  and  sqq. 
Pighius,  73 
Pisa,  Council  of,  59 
Pitra,  Cardinal,  276 
Pius  IX.,  his  three   letters  before 

the  Council,  220  and  sqq.  ;    his 

character,  269 
Purcell,  Bishop,  246 
Pusey,  225  and  sqq. 

QUIRINUS,  174  and  sqq. 
Quotations  from  Holy  Scripture  : — 

St  Luke  xxii.  32,  p.  2 

Rom.  i.  n,  p.  5 

1  Thess.  iii.  2 ;  iii.  13,  p.  5 

2  Thess.  ii.  17  ;  iii.  3,  p.  6 
Heb.  i.  12,  p.  4 

1  Pet.  v.  10,  p.  6. 

2  Pet.  i.  12,  p.  6 
Rev.  iii.  2,  p.  6 

RAUSCHER,  Cardinal,  240 
Reusch,  311  and  sqq. 
Richelieu,  Cardinal,  79 
Richer,  69,  80,  81 
Ryder,  344,  354 

SCHISM,  Great,  55,  and  sqq. 
Schwane,    12,  51,  52,   53,   76,  77, 

346 
Schwarzenberg,  190  and  sqq.,  271 


Sergius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 

32  and  sqq. 
Sibour,  184 
Sirmond,  36 
Sophronius,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem, 

32,  33)  43 

Sorbonne,  58,  79  and  sqq. 
Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome,  16,  18 
Strossmayer,  Bishop,  183,  237,  271 

TEMPORAL  and  spiritual  power,  49, 
50,  207  and  sqq.  ;  Bossuet  on, 
88,  89  ;  Sibour  on,  184  ;  Fenelon 
on,  49 

Tertullian,  13 

Throgmorton,  Sir  John,  98  and 
sqq.,  102 

Torquemada,  76,  77  and  sqq. 

Tradition,  Christian,  13,  22,  24,  50 

Trent,  Council  of,  66,  and  sqq.,  70; 
appealed  to  by  Veron,  83 

Truth,  test  of.    See  Vincent  of  Lerins 

Turmel,  30,  38-41,  46,  53 

Ullathorne,  Bishop,  103,  121,  128, 
132,  284,  290 

Ultramontane  methods  of  contro 
versy,  262,  325 

Ultramontanism,  Acton  on,  336 

Universities,  position  of  in  the 
Church,  85 

Urban  VI.,  56  and  sqq. 

Validity  of  Decrees  not  imparted  by 

Papal  confirmation,  63 
Vatican    Council,    Infallibility  not 

mentioned   at   the    beginning   of 

it,  232,  238 

Veron's  Rule  of  Faith,  83,  84 
Veuillot,  177,  181 
Vincent  of  Lerins,  St,  22  and  sqq., 

50,  189,  367 

WARD,  116,  117,  129 
— ,  Bernard,  100 

,  W.,98 

Will,  relation  of  human  and  divine, 

341  and  sqq. 
Wiseman,  Cardinal,  102-104,  119 


PRINTED  AT  THE  EDINBURGH  PRESS 
9  AND  11  YOUNG  STREET 


BX  1806  .352  1909 

SMC 

SPARROW-SIMPSON,  w.  J. 

(WILLIAM  JOHN), 
ROMAN  CATHOLIC 

OPPOSITION  TO  PAPAL 
AKD-6562  (MCFM)