Twenty-Fourth Letter.

Twenty-Fourth Letter.Rome, Feb. 20, 1870.—The following classification of the French Bishops here according to their parties may be interesting.The French themselves distinguish three factions, Liberal, Ultramontane, and the Third Party—i.e., those who have signed no address, and have openly refused to do so. To the Liberal section belong Alby, Gaz, Marseilles, Nizza, Cahors, Mende, Perpignan, Bayonne, Montpellier, Valence, Viviers, La Rochelle, Luçon, Besançon, Metz, Nancy, Verdun, Annecy, Autun, Dijon, Grenoble, Paris, Orleans, Rheims, Chalons, S. Brieux, Vannes, Bayeux, Coutances, Evreux—thirty votes altogether.The Ultramontanes are—Rodez, Aire, Nîmes, Angoulême, Poictiers (in the superlative), Belley, St. Diez, Strasburg, Le Puy, Tulle, St. Jean de Maurienne, Langres, St. Claude, Blois, Chartres, Meaux, Versailles,[pg 290]Amiens, Beauvais, Rennes (a malcontent Ultramontane), Seez, Moulins, Toulouse, Carcassonne, Montauban, Laval and Le Mans—twenty-seven votes.In the Third Party, headed by the Cardinal-Archbishop of Rouen, are included Périgueus, Bourges, Tarantaise, Cambray, Arras, Nevers, Troyes, Pamiers, Tours—ten votes.The Bishops of Digne, Fréjus, Toulon and Soissons are described as doubtful.The English Bishops are similarly divided. Manning has only been able to get one single Bishop over to his side. Two, Errington and Clifford, have signed the Address against Infallibility. Six, including Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, form a third party, who decline to sign anything on either side. It is the same with the Irish Bishops. The Romanized Cullen, whom the Pope forced as Primate on the Irish Bishops, with the same view as he imposed Manning on the English Bishops, against their will, is of course an Infallibilist, and would rejoice to enforce this dogma, which they detest, on the educated classes of Ireland by the help of the lower orders. Bishops Moriarty and Leahy (of Dromore) have signed the Petition against Infallibility. Archbishop MacHale of Tuam, and some others with[pg 291]him, belong to the third party, while the majority of the Irish Bishops see in Papal Infallibility a means for increasing their influence over the people. What view the South Italian Bishops take is illustrated by the following anecdote. An Italian statesman spoke to two of them about the immoderate claims contained in theSchema de Ecclesiâ, and asked them whether they really meant to assent to such decrees?“We cannot go against the Holy Father,”was their reply. When he reminded them of the independent attitude of the German Bishops, they replied,“They can take that line, for they are rich.”Another of the South Italians amused the Council by urging that the constant wearing of the long cassock should be enforced, because Christ rose and ascended into heaven in that dress.Since theSchema de Ecclesiâhas been in the hands of the Bishops, it is clear to all that the Council has been convoked simply for the purpose of extending the power of the Pope and strengthening the influence of the Jesuits, and that everything is designed to subserve this one end. The Bishops are to forge chains for binding, first the secular powers, and then themselves and the whole clergy with them. The feeling they are[pg 292]possessed with is a bitter and painful one. They feel outwitted and caught in a trap. They were summoned to Rome, without being told a word of the objects aimed at or the matters to be dealt with; on their arrival they were strung and fixed, like the keys of a harpsichord, into the great conciliar instrument, and they find that they are to be used by the hand of the mighty musician to produce tones which sound to themselves most utterly nauseous. They know well enough that the most eloquent speeches and most forcible arguments don't change a single vote of the majority, who would remain firm and unmoved as the rock of Peter if a Chrysostom or Augustine was among them. In an outburst of disgust at theSchema de Ecclesiâ, a German Prelate, formerly Roman in his sympathies, exclaimed,“ThisSchemadeserves to be thrust down into hell.”One hears these men congratulating their colleagues who stayed at home under a presentiment of what was coming. The news of the adjournment of the Council, begun under such evil auspices, would be welcomed by them with delight.But these reports of an adjournment are rather wishes than hopes. The prorogation would imply an[pg 293]admission that the Council had been a failure through the fault of theCuria, in the perversity of the regulations it imposed on the Bishops, and the extravagance of the measures it brought forward.“Perissent les colonies plutôt qu'un principe”—this saying, uttered in the Paris Convention of 1793, may often be heard here in various applications. The world will be enlightened in a few days by the publication of the new or altered order of business. It is not prorogation that is the immediate business, but the subjection of the minority more than ever to the rule of the majority and its wire-pullers who stand behind it, the outvoting them by majorities.In French circles a paper called theMoniteur Universelis making no small sensation. It contains a detailed account of the proceedings of the Council, drawn up by a learned Frenchman residing here and under the inspiration of French Bishops. It is thoroughly authentic and carefully weighed—far the best and most accurate account of the Council in that language. You may perhaps find room for the following, which substantially confirms and partly supplements and rectifies my own statements:—“The Council of Trent arranged the order of business for itself. In this case just the contrary has been[pg 294]done: everything was pre-arranged and imposed on the Council by the Pope, and even the secretaries and scrutators were named beforehand. No initiative is allowed to the Bishops; the Commission for examining motions is formed of the hottest Infallibilists and members of theCuria, but the final decision is reserved to the Pope. The proposers of a motion are not even allowed to explain and defend it, so that the freedom nominally conceded to the Bishops of proposing measures is rendered purely illusory. By the composition of the four Commissions, elected from Roman lists of names, all work of critical importance is kept in the hands of the few Infallibilists chosen for the purpose by theCuria, to the exclusion of 700 Bishops, among whom are all the German Bishops who signed the Fulda Letter to the Pope, and the most influential French Prelates. In short, all Bishops not known to be thorough-going Infallibilists have been systematically excluded from the Commissions. Very different was it at Trent, where all the Fathers, divided into four Congregations, took a real part in the work. We must add the monstrous disproportion of national representation—the enormous and overwhelming preponderance of the Italians, still further strengthened by the host of Vicars-Apostolic, who can at any[pg 295]moment be deposed by the Propaganda without any legal formality. Thus the Italian Bishops alone outnumber all the French, German, Hungarian and North American together, though these last represent a population nearly three times as large. The weakness of the two French Cardinals, Bonnechose and Mathieu, who ought to have taken the lead, has frustrated the attempt to unite the French Bishops in a national group. Bonnechose consulted Antonelli, who said the French must not assemble in larger bodies than fifteen or at most twenty together. The evil consequences were at once shown in the elections.“The Bishops are compelled by the Pope to hold their sittings in a place where at least a third cannot understand a word that is said, so that,e.g., Cardinal di Pietro long since declared he had not really understood a single speech, and another Cardinal said that not twenty words of all the speeches had reached his ear. A really searching discussion and living interchange of observations and replies is out of the question. No speaker can hope to produce any impression on this audience. And thus the firstSchema, which consists of 140 pages, was the subject of general discussion for weeks without any detailed discussion of the separate[pg 296]articles being arrived at, or any point certainly ascertained, notwithstanding the number of speakers. The only result was a great waste of time, bodily fatigue and a deep discouragement. Had the object been to satiate the assembly with speechesusque ad nauseamit could not have been better managed. It would be something if the Fathers could read the speeches they can't hear, but neither are they allowed to be read; the Bishops may not even print their addresses at their own cost. Thus many of them are wholly deprived of the opportunity of expressing their views, knowing that they will not be heard.“Vigorous preparations were made for two years before the opening of the Council. There is matter enough for ten Councils, but it is only communicated to the Bishops piecemeal, so that they can get no insight into the connection and plan of the separate propositions. Thus a ready-made Council has been put before 700 Bishops, which they are obliged again to unstitch like a web. As the Bishops had no means of gaining previous information, the Council is mostly deaf and dumb, and has at last got driven into a narrow pass from which there is no exit without a thorough alteration of the order of business. No one[pg 297]can say how it will be with the examination of the separate articles of theSchemata, and yet the Council ought to have most carefully weighed every word of decrees which are to be imposed on the world under anathema.”[pg 298]Twenty-Fifth Letter.Rome, Feb. 24, 1870.—Since my last letter, the Council, whose movements for a long time were like those of a tortoise, has made gigantic strides. The Goddess of Insolence (ὕβρις) rules here just as the Greek tragedians—especially Sophocles—describe her. All rumours of an adjournment of the Council were partly well-meant wishes of several Bishops, partly produced by the fact of the Governments—the French in particular—earnestly desiring it. Here in Rome no one of the Vatican party has thought of it for a moment. All who know the real state of things and persons here must be convinced that the Council will certainly be gone through with to the end, either completely—in full accordance with the well-calculated plan sketched out during the last two years for partly Jesuitizing and partly Romanizing everything in the Church, in theology and in the religious life, and carrying[pg 299]out centralization to the utmost extent—or that, at least, there will be no adjournment till the most precious jewel hitherto wanting to the Papal tiara, dogmatic Infallibility, has been inserted there. Then, and not till then, will theCuriahave obtained the irresistible talisman which opens every gate, fulfils every desire and brings every treasure. That dogma is Aladdin's magic lamp for Rome.There are three powers who wish to gain by the Council, and who decide on its proceedings and destiny—the Pope, the Jesuits, and theCuria. Among the members of theCuriathere are indeed very few who have not long since made their calculations, with that appreciation of the realities of life which is peculiar to the Italian nation, and who do not know as well what a dogma is worth for Rome as people know what a man is“worth”in England. Every assailant of the dogma is their personal enemy; he is simply emptying their gold-mine. Nor is the doctrine less valuable and indispensable to the Jesuits, at this day more than before, since they no longer have to fear the rivalry of any other Order in making capital out of the prerogative of Infallibility.As regards the Pope, he has constantly changed in[pg 300]his official life and vacillated from one side to the other, and those about him say that in many, nay in most, things he follows capricious and momentary impulses. But Pius is inflexible and immutable where he fancies he is a divine instrument and has received a divine mission, and that is the case here. He is persuaded that he is ordained by the special favour of God to be the most glorious of all Popes. Among his predecessors there are three to whom he seems to me to have a great likeness. I should say that he had chosen them as models, if I could assume that he knew their history. But Pius has never occupied himself with the past; he is purely the child of his age, and lives only in the present. The three are Innocentx., Clementxi., and above all Pauliv.He has in common with the first his strong experimental belief in his own personal inspiration without any theological culture. He resembles the second in giving himself up to the theological guidance of the Jesuits, and in his highhanded treatment of such Bishops as dare to have an opinion of their own. And just as Pauliv.used to boast that hereafter men would be obliged to tell of the lofty plans conceived by an aged Italian who, as being near his death, might have rested and bewailed[pg 301]his sins,56so does Pius too desire in his old age to make great though peaceful conquests, and to establish the Papal sovereignty as a“rocher du bronze,”to borrow the phrase of another autocrat. With the help of the Council he hopes to render the universal dominion of the Papacy an impregnable fortress, by means of new walls, bastions and batteries, and to hand it down to his successors as an omnipresent and omnipotent power. He believes that the thoughts and desires of his soul are in reality the counsels of God made known to him by inspiration, and that if by following these counsels he accomplishes the deliverance of the Church and of mankind, it is the Hand of God which uses him as an instrument. And why should not Pius see a sign of his election to high and extraordinary destinies in the circumstance of his having already sat longer than any of his 256 predecessors, even Piusvi., on the apostolic throne? A history of his Pontificate has already been written in this sense by one of the Jesuits of theCiviltà,and Pius has the chapters read to him one after the other. I am told that a chapter on the Council is already written. The French Court historiographer, Vertot, who had to describe a Belgian campaign including[pg 302]the siege of a fortress, wrote the history of the siege before it was finished, and said quietly,“Mon siège est fait.”And thus the Jesuit historian of the Pope can already say,“Mon Concile est fait.”And in one sense the Council is indeed finished since the 23d inst.—finished by the new order of business.If the merit of this clever invention is primarily due to the Cardinals on the Commission for revising motions, and the Jesuits who were probably taken into partnership with them, its introduction must be counted among the most eventful acts of Pius, past or future. If it is carried out and adhered to without opposition, it is unquestionably the most conspicuous of all the victories of the Pope. Margotti, the editor of theUnita Cattolica, will hardly be able to find words to do justice to the great day, February 23, 1870, with its boundless wealth of happy results, in the next edition of his work,Le Vittorie della Santa Chiesa sotto Pio IX. ATe Deumwill have to be sung in every Jesuit College of the old and new world.Great anxiety was felt beforehand about the new order of business. It was said that the Sessions were to be something more than mere votings, that there would still be speeches made, that the written memorials[pg 303]would not be so directly thrown into the waste-paper basket, but would be considered and—if they approved of them—made use of by the Commission. But everything will be settled by the Commission and by a simple majority of votes; the minority may talk, but only so long as the Commission and the majority choose to listen to them.Væ victis!The Council belongs to the Italians and the Spaniards, who are in close alliance with them: from henceforth to wish to reject anySchemaor decree brought before it, is like wanting to stop water from flowing downwards. All the proposals of the minority for a change in the order of business have been left unnoticed. It had already been resolved that a debate could only be cut short by the votes of a majority of two-thirds, but this has been reversed. What will the French and Germans do now? This is naturally the question which trembles on every lip and is written on every countenance. Will they simply acquiesce in thefait accompliwith a good grace, and obediently assume the rôle of the Greek Chorus in the drama of the Council—simply to reflect and moralize, but take no active part in the proceedings? The next few days will show. So much every one perceives; the order of business is the noose which, once fixed on the minority,[pg 304]cannot be got out of, and will only be drawn tighter and tighter till it strangles them at last. It is clear that the majority has the hide of a rhinoceros, from which every arrow shot by the Opposition, however skilfully aimed, glances off harmless. Where are now the wise and foolish virgins?“Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out,”must the Germans, French, and Spanish say henceforth to the Italians, and the answer will be more friendly than in the Gospel:“You need not buy any more oil; come over to our side and be content to use our store.”It is hardly necessary to observe to your readers that everything which takes place here turns on the question of Infallibility. The new order of business is merely the outer covering for this kernel.“With Infallibility we have all we desire or need,”say the Italians, if that is gained we may“let the nigger go,”and can dispense with his services for the future. But for German theologians, whose hair stands on end at the new order of business and all it involves, I can find no other consolation than what they may derive from the following Persian tale. An English ambassador sent to Persia—I think it was Morier—paid the usual visits at Teheran, and was introduced[pg 305]to the younger son of the Shah. He found him groping about blindfold in the room, and feeling for the furniture in it. The Prince explained this strange business by telling him that it was the rule for the younger sons to be blinded at the death of the Shah, in order to make them incapable of succeeding, and that he wished to prepare and practise himself beforehand for the fate impending over him.“Go ye, and do likewise.”If the German theologians should still have courage to present an address to their Bishops, the subscription might be,“Morituri vos salutant.”Why have these theologians come to such utter discomfiture?Here one already hears shouts of triumph; the day of retribution will soon come for those proud Transalpines, when they must bend their necks under the Caudine yoke of the new dogma, or await suspension, degradation, etc.If German theology had long been decried and hated by theCuriaand the Italian Jesuits, and if theCiviltàgladly took occasion to pour out its wrath on the scholars of“foggy”Germany, you may conceive the extent this fury has reached in Italian clerical papers and curialist circles, since it has become known that[pg 306]the most influential theologians have pronounced against Infallibility, and that not one—with the exception of a couple of pupils of the Jesuits—has said a word to defend it. It is well that one of the most distinguished Italians, a man whose devotion to the Church is unimpeached even in Rome, and whom the Pope has commissioned to write a history of the Council—I mean Cantù—has some years ago confessed and censured this characteristic of his countrymen.“To call laziness superiority, and evade the trouble of examining questions by depreciating them, this is only too much the habit of Italians, and then they mock at the ponderous, long-winded, hair-splitting Germans. But we must endure the reproach of negligence and thoughtlessness from the Germans, while we blindly accept falsified documents.”57Cantù has hit on the sore place there; for it is precisely their having pointed out the long line of numerous and systematic forgeries, on which the[pg 307]Roman claims of Infallibility are based, and which are used to further other aims of the Italians, that is the main ground of the hatred of the Germans. And now Frenchmen too, like Gratry, come forward and publish these facts over land and sea in their cosmopolitan tongue and clear incisive style.To return to what preceded the publication of the new order of business; in the last sittings of the Council coming events threw their shadows before. The Bishops of Carcassonne and Belley declared roundly that Infallibility must be proclaimed, and in order, said the latter, to restore the menaced or broken unity of the Church. The impatience and vexation of the authorities are constantly on the increase. Manning said there was only one way of stopping the definition, and that was to cut the throats of half the 500 Bishops of the majority. Of course the Prelates who heard him cried out, like the Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, when Count George of Brandenburg wanted to cut off heads for another doctrine,“No heads off! no heads off!”At the last sitting on theSchema de Catechismo, on the 22d, a scene occurred which presages what is to become the regular practice. The Bishop of Namur had said, in reference to some previous attacks[pg 308]on the Breviary, that no one who spoke against it could be a good Christian. For the information of your readers I must premise a few words here. The Breviary is a collection of prayers and lections for the clergy, introduced by Rome, consisting chiefly of psalms and passages from the Bible and the Lives of the Saints.58TheCuriahas used this, like so many other things, as aninstrumentum dominationis, and a number of fables and forgeries devised in the interest of the Papal system have been interpolated into it. The French Church had long since adopted the precaution of employing a Breviary of her own, much better and purer than the Roman. It was against observations made about this in the Council that the harsh comment of the Bishop of Namur was directed.[pg 309]Twenty-Sixth Letter.Rome, Feb. 28, 1870.—Our last letter closed with an account of a scene in the Session of February 22, occasioned by some attacks on the Roman Breviary. The Bishop of Namur had maintained that no one who attacked it could be a good Christian.Haynald was one of those who had censured the present condition of the Breviary, and he now replied to Bishop Gravez that in criticising it he had the Fathers of Trent and the Popes themselves for accomplices (complices). A tempest broke out at these words. But Haynald went further and said, with reference to Bishop Langalerie of Belley, that the majority, with their proposals for new dogmas, were the cause of the disunion which had broken out in the Church, and that it would be much better for the heads of the Church to confine themselves to preserving the ancient doctrines in their purity, instead of adding new[pg 310]ones. The Church had succeeded very well with the old doctrines. At this first open attack in Council on the Infallibilist project the storm grew fiercer, and Capalti seized the bell of the President, De Angelis, rung it violently and forbade the speaker to proceed.“Taceas et ab ambone descendas,”he exclaimed. When Haynald went on all the same, a wild cry broke from the majority. The Archbishop of Calocsa at last came down, and so great was the excitement that the sitting was closed and the next postponed to March 2.Meanwhile more attention and care than before has been devoted in Paris to what is going on at Rome. The Emperor and his present ministers understand the gravity of the situation; they know what would be meant by such journals as theMondeand theUniversdaily appealing to infallible Papal decisions, and under their authority calling in question every institution and law of France, and proving beforehand to their readers that there is no obligation in conscience to submit to them, because the Pope has directly or indirectly signified his disapproval. Archbishop Lavigerie of Algiers brought back word to Cardinal Antonelli, on returning to Rome from his mission, that France was in no condition to tolerate the definition of Infallibility,[pg 311]which might lead to a schism, since not only the whole body of State-officers, but the writers, and even the Faubourg St. Germain, were opposed to the new dogma. Antonelli is not apt to be much influenced by such representations, which he views as mere idle threats; he is spoilt by the courtly flatteries of the ever obsequious M. de Banneville, whom he has managed completely to disarm. He has three devices of domestic diplomacy by which he knows how to make excellent use of both Banneville and Trautmansdorff. At one time he says,“It is not we—Pius, theCuriaand I—who want the dogma, but the foreign Bishops, and we should be encroaching on the freedom of the Council by impeding them. And we ought not to subject ourselves to that reproach.”Then, for a variety, he adopts another line.“The Pope,”he says,“has all he wants already, and the dogma of Infallibility would not give him anything more. As it is, and with a Council assembled, all the decrees emanate from him and receive from him their validity, and he can summon or dissolve the Council at his pleasure, so that it only exists by his will and would crumble into dust without him. It is therefore the interest of the Bishops, not ours, that is in question here, and they will know well why[pg 312]the dogma is so valuable to them.”His third formula is,“Every good Christian believes the doctrine already, and therefore little or nothing will be changed in the Church by defining it, and we have not the least desire to use the new decree for calling in question the existing compacts and Concordats. We shall gladly leave alone the concessions we have already granted.”These resources of the Cardinal have hitherto sufficed. But new powers and demands seem to be coming to the front, which his diplomatic counters will no longer satisfy. I have copies of two letters of Count Daru, of January 18 and February 5. These official expressions of opinion from Paris have made theCiviltàJesuits bitterly angry, and their famous article on thePolicastri, in its original form, contained a violent attack on the French statesmen, who were classed with the other ministers and diplomats in such ill repute at Rome. But this roused the alarm of the supreme authority, and so the Jesuits had to eat their own words, and to substitute for their attack a high commendation of Count Daru and the loyalty of France to the Concordat. There is some good in having the articles of theCiviltàregularly revised in the Vatican. I understand that it is intended at Paris to send a special ambassador to Rome to the Council.[pg 313]Meanwhile the Bishops of the minority are consulting how they shall deal with the new order of business. It was announced to the Fathers at the Session of February 22 that, in accordance with these new regulations, they must hand in all their observations on the first ten chapters of theSchema de Ecclesiâin writing within ten days.Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore has not receded from his ludicrous notion that his Infallibilist formula is milder and more tolerable than that of the 400. He has laid it before the thirty-five French Bishops (of the minority), who have unanimously rejected it. Its essence consists, as was mentioned before, in asserting that everybody must receive with unconditional inward assent every Papal decision on every question of faith or morals or Church life. On all theological principles such faith can only be accorded in cases where all possibility of error is excluded, or, in other words, where a revealed truth is concerned; and therefore to accept this formula would be to set aside the limitation of Papal Infallibility, hitherto recognised even in Rome, to decisions pronouncedex cathedrâ. And thus, in the crush and confusion of the innumerable and often contradictory decisions of Popes, theology would degenerate[pg 314]into a lamentable caricature of a system—“science”it could no longer be termed—involved in hopeless contradictions. If the good Spalding had the slightest acquaintance with Church history, he would know that he was bound, in virtue of his inward assent paid to all Papal decrees, first of all to reject his own orders as invalid.59And now I must notice more particularly what Bishop Ketteler has published against me in some German newspapers. He says that in the telegram of February 13, published in theAllg. Zeitungof February 15, he has found the opportunity he had long desired for convicting the writer of theLetters from Romeof building up“a whole system of lying and deceit.”60It is“an indescribable dishonesty,”a“detestable untruth,”etc. His short letter bristles with such accusations. The untruths he complains of are the following:—[pg 315](1.) The telegram called the statement made by Bishop Ketteler and his ally, Bishop Melchers, a“proposal.”He replies that it was only a“communication.”(2.) It treats the occurrence as a“negotiation,”whereas it was only a“short conference.”(3.) There was no debate with“a serious opposition.”The Bishops indeed had expressed different views, and some had disapproved Döllinger's pronouncement, while the others thought only certain individual Bishops might have occasion to come forward against it. (They accordingly understood Ketteler's“communication”just as my informant did, and therefore spoke out against accepting it.)(4.) Ketteler did not hear any Bishop say, as stated in the telegram, that Döllinger really had the majority of (German) Bishops with him.And now let us compare Ketteler's account, deducting the abusive comments subjoined to every sentence, with the—of course extremely compressed—account in the telegram, and we shall find the two in substantial agreement. The Bishop is obliged to interpolate something into the telegram, in order to find fuel for the fire of holy indignation his delirious fancy has betrayed him[pg 316]into. He quarrels with me fiercely for saying there was a debate and a negotiation, whereas there was only a conference; but I never made use of those words. He says he made no motion, but he himself recounts statements of the Bishops which show clearly that they understood his“communication”as an invitation to do as he did. Only one somewhat important point of difference remains, viz., whether the Bishops named in the telegram said what they are there reported to have said or not. Bishop Ketteler can only say that he did not hear them say it. But considering that in an informal meeting of forty or forty-five persons, broken up into groups, a great deal is said which every one in the room does not hear, and that I received my information the same day from one who was present, I still adhere to my assertion that they did say it. For the rest, I am much indebted to Bishop Ketteler; he assures us that he has long desired an opportunity for saying all the evil he can of me and my Letters. He has now made a grand onset. If he had found anything in the eighteen long Letters before him better suited to his purpose, he would certainly not have taken refuge in such petty trivialities and, like a boy with snowballs, have flung what has turned into water in his hand. He has[pg 317]thus unwillingly given testimony to the truthfulness of my Letters. And for this I pardon him his exaggerated rhetoric, but will not suppress the remark made by an Englishman who knows mankind well:“There are certain women, says Fielding, always ready to raise a cry of‘Murder, fire, rape’and the like, but that means no more in their mouths than any one else means in going over the scale, Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol,”etc.[pg 318]Twenty-Seventh Letter.Rome, March 8, 1870.—“Habemus Papam falli nescium!”The Bishops of the Manning and Deschamps party are in raptures; all Rome, say the Infallibilist devotees, is in the highest spirits. The great doctrine, on which, as all the Jesuits and their disciples assure us, hinges the salvation of humanity and the regeneration of science and literature, was published on March 6 in the form of a supplement to theSchema de Ecclesiâ. The Pope bears witness of himself that he is infallible as teacher of the Church, and the great majority of the Council will readily assent. Already they are exulting in that moment of triumph when the Pope from his throne in the Hall,“sacro Concilio approbante,”and amid the pealing of all the bells in Rome, will proclaim to the world that it is now fortunate enough to possess an infallible teacher and judge in all questions of faith and morals, guaranteed by God Himself. Day and hour for[pg 319]the proclamation will be chosen with the greatest deliberation and foresight, and here another ground for clinging so pertinaciously to the present Council Hall comes out. It was thought quite incomprehensible why“the master”insulted 750 aged men by compelling them, in spite of all wishes and representations and the evidence of his own senses, to hold their sittings in a Chamber so utterly unfit for the purpose. In a city so abounding in churches and halls as Rome this seemed an act rather of ill-tempered caprice than of hospitable care. It was known of course that the previous expectations of the Vatican had been disappointed, that it had been hoped theSchematawould be received by acclamation or by storm, as it were, without discussion, and that the Hall had been chosen on the very ground of its acoustic defects being adapted to that end. Now however a new recommendation of the Hall betrays itself. At a certain hour on a clear and cloudless day the rays of the sun fall exactly on the place where the Pope's throne stands, so that Pius may hope, by help of careful arrangements about the time, to stand in a glory of sunlight at the moment when he announces to the world the divine revelation of his own infallibility. It is on this wise, as we said before, that he has had himself represented[pg 320]in the memorial picture of the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. At the Coronation of Charlesx.of France doves were let fly into the church. And so in Rome also a dove might be trained, so as to make it hover above the Pope at the moment of his apotheosis being proclaimed by his own mouth, which would make the effect quite irresistible.In this state of things the eyes of all men are turned on the Bishops united, or rather not united but only assembled, in Council. The great majority are much in the disposition of the Athenians, when Alexander sent word to them that he had become a god, and wished to be worshipped as such. The popular assembly cried out that, if Alexander really wished to be a god, he was one. So say 300 Bishops:“We eat the Pope's bread and drink his wine and rest under his roof, so—let him be infallible.”And 100 Bishops say:“We are nothing but titular Bishops, with no dioceses or flocks; from whom but the Pope do we get our titles? So—let him be infallible.”Others again say:“We call ourselves Bishops or Vicars-Apostolic by favour of the Pope, and during his good pleasure. Let him then be infallible.”Lastly others say:“TheCuriahas us in its power, and we need it at every step;[pg 321]the Pope must be infallible, since he desires it.”Thus we have 550 born infallibilists. And to them must be added those whom the Italians—e.g., Mamiani—call more curtly than courteously“gli Energumeni stranieri,”prelates of the Manning typeet id genus omne, who really take part as volunteers in this campaign for the triumph of papal infallibility and the domination of souls. Many, like Sieyès formerly, will vote“la mort et sans phrase,”but we shall read of unctuous motives alleged by the volunteers for their votes. They want infallibility for themselves as well as others; for themselves, because then there will be no further need“to dig,”for which they have“neither hand nor foot,”but all doctrines will be received ready made, measured and cut out by the Jesuits and stamped and guaranteed as genuine in the Roman printing-office; for others, because thereby every doubt or suspicion or inconvenient demand in matters of doctrine will be summarily got rid of and suppressed.It is three months to-day since the Council was opened. Viewed from without, the circumstances could hardly have been more favourable; in national diversities and universality of representation the assembly surpassed all former Councils, nor was it so obvious at the[pg 322]beginning that under this bright outside was concealed a crying and iniquitous inequality of representation, and that here again the mastery was placed in the hands of the Italians. But how have all hopes been deceived now, and who had thought of this lamentable upshot!Lamartine desired of his age that Italy should produce“des hommes et non de la poussière humaine.”For three months have these 750 prelates been assembled—in theory the very flower of the Catholic world, the pastors of 180 million souls, men with a rich experience at their back. They were at once separated into two parties, one of 600 and the other of about 150. On which side are the men and on which the human dust? What have these 600 done in the three months they have been together, what have they brought to an issue, and what thoughts or sparks of intelligence have been struck out of this daily contact with so many high dignitaries from the four quarters of the world? Their utter sterility, aimlessness and poverty of thought—their passively resigning themselves to a mere assent to the thoughts and words of others—all this, when watched close at hand, makes a painful impression. It is true that European history since 1789 has accustomed us to the infirmities and follies and the unproductiveness[pg 323]of great deliberative assemblies; it has become an every-day phenomenon, and in our days one's expectations from an ecclesiastical assembly can only be of the most moderate kind. There is no fear there of rash and hasty decisions or revolutionary measures. But La Bruyere's saying,“A great assembly always becomes a rabble,”is verified even at Rome, and the Italians of 1870 have already begun to emulate the example of their ancestors in 1562. Just as the majority at Trent knew how to reduce a disagreeable speaker to silence by wild cries and coughing and scraping with their feet, so is it now at the Vatican Council. It is the humiliating feeling of intellectual impotence and of deficiency alike in knowledge, eloquence and mind, as compared with the minority, from whom almost everything emanates that can be called life or thought in the Council. They feel their abject littleness, in their thankless rôle of being a mere echo of theSchemataand Canons proposed, and having to present in so unadorned and undisguised a form that“sacrificio dell' intelletto”which the Jesuits so eagerly commend. The honour of being afterwards lauded, as one of the 600 organs of the Holy Ghost at this Council, has to be purchased rather dear. But we cannot in fact come to close quarters and converse with[pg 324]these Bishops of the majority, without being reminded of the reply of a Dane to a Frenchman, who said to him (before the Revolution) that the highest Order in France was that of the Holy Ghost.“Notre Saint Esprit est un éléphant,”answered the Dane. But the situation is almost too serious for such thoughts.A synopsis of the outstanding measures has been presented to the Council. There are altogether 51Schemata: 3 on“Faith,”28 on“Discipline,”18 on“Religious Orders,”2 on“Oriental Church affairs:”of these 39 have not yet been distributed, and 46 not discussed; 12 are in the hands of the Bishops, of which 5 have been already discussed and are to be again presented and examined, after being modified by the Commission. This is obviously matter enough for two years' work; yet the Council Hall and the hitherto irresistible and invulnerable majority will conspire to push the 51Schemataexpeditiously through the Council, unabbreviated and hardly altered. If only the master at last praises and rewards his servants!Meanwhile 34 French Bishops have signed a Statement of Protest against the new order of business. I hear that the perversity of deciding doctrines by counting heads is emphatically dwelt on. The same document[pg 325]has been subscribed by 33 German Bishops, with certain additions. Cardinals Mathieu and Rauscher, while professing their agreement, did not think it well to sign. Some 10 or 12 Germans have accepted a shorter but more precise and pointed address, maintaining the same principles. Some Orientals too have signed, while the deliberations of the Americans, on the other hand, came to no result.Such declarations are necessary for the outer world and for the satisfaction of their own consciences, but they can hardly be expected to produce any effect, nor do the signataries themselves anticipate any important change being made in the newregolamento. Would that their representations were formal protests, declaring that they would take no further part in an assembly lacking the necessary conditions of a true Council! But neither the French nor Germans could resolve on that. It would be hard even for a man like Dupanloup, who may be reckoned a leader of the Opposition, openly to contradict his own earlier writings about the Pope. The question suggests itself, If Pius, before his infallibility is made a dogma, has said,“I am the way, the truth, and the life,”what will he say when his apotheosis is accomplished? What words of human language[pg 326]will suffice adequately to denote the sublimity of his position? A former saying of a member of the Italian aristocracy, well known for his witty remarks, occurs to me,“Gli altri Papi credevano esser Vicarii di Christo, ma questo Papa crede che nostro Signore sia il suo Vicario in cielo.”We live here in the place whereof Tacitus wrote eighteen centuries ago,“Cupido dominandi cunctis affectibus flagrantior est.”61If infallibility is defined, every member of the Roman Congregations has the pleasing certainty that he possesses“divinæ particulam auræ.”Pius is as firm and resolved as ever; the Jesuits have told him that, if the new dogma produces any confusion and scandal in the Church, it matters nothing—other dogmatic decisions have led to great confusion, but have remained triumphant; in a hundred years all will be quiet. Father Piccirillo, the editor of theCiviltàand special favourite of Pius, has consoled other prelates in the same way.TheSchema de Ecclesiâhas been compared with the lecture notes of a Jesuit Professor at the Collegio Romano, and the two are shown to agree precisely.[pg 327]Even the most abjectPlacet-men of the majority feel rather ashamed of this; they had not quite expected to be summoned to Rome, simply in order to formulate the lecture notes of a Jesuit into dogmatic decrees for the whole Church.An individual so insignificant intellectually, that I never expected to have any occasion for mentioning his name, and who is regarded in German circles as the standing joke of the Council, a certain Wolanski, has just been placed on the Congregation of the Index, as censor for German books. He would be utterly incompetent even to transcribe the work of a German theologian for the press. But in Rome they like, from time to time, to give a kick of this sort to foreigners.Postscript.—I have just been put in a position to tell you something of the contents of the episcopal protest against the new order of business. In respect to the thirteenth article it is objected, that in former Councils a method of voting simply designed to secure expedition (“eo expedito modo”) has never been adopted—a form“quo nullus certe alius gravitati et maturitati deliberationis, imo et ipsi libertati minus favet.”It is added, that even in political assemblies the right is[pg 328]granted of demanding that votes should be taken by calling names. It is not rapidity of decision, but prudence and the utmost possible security, that is the important point.“Quod in Concilio maxime refert, non est ut cito res expediatur, sed ut caute et tutissime peragatur. Longe satius est paucas quæstiones expendere et prudenter solvere, quam multo numerosiores proponere et decurtatis discussionibus suffragiisque præcipitanter collectis res tam graves irrevocabiliter definire.”The document goes on to protest against the regulation for first counting the votes of those who assent to the proposed decrees, and not till after this has been done of those who reject them. This is quite wrong;“Cum in quæstionibus fidei tutius sit sistere et definitionem differre, quam temere progredi, ideo conditio dissentientium favorabilior esse debet, et ipsis prioritas in dandis suffragiis excedenda esset.”The memorialists further desire that, in the definition of a dogma or the establishment of a canon armed with anathema, the votes should be orally given byPlacetandNon placet, not by rising and sitting down. And then great stress is laid on the point of dogmas not being decided by a mere majority but only by moral unanimity, so that any decree opposed by a considerable number of[pg 329]Bishops may be held to be rejected. The Bishops say,“Cum dogmata constent Ecclesiarum consensu, ut ait Bellarminus,”moral unanimity is necessary. There is a further demand or request of the Bishops,“ut suffragia patrum non supertoto Schemateet quasiin globo, sed seorsim super unâquâque definitione, super unoquoque Canone, perPlacetautNon placetsigillatim rogentur et edantur.”The Fathers should also be free, according to the Pope's previous arrangement, to give in their remarks in writing. But the following is the most important passage:—“Id autem quod spectat ad numerum suffragiorum requisitum ut quæstiones dogmaticæ solvantur, in quo quidem rei summa est et totius Concilii cardo vertitur, ita grave est, ut nonnisi admitteretur, quod reverenter et enixe postulamus, conscientia nostra intolerabili pondere premeretur. Timeremus, ne Concilii Œcumenici character in dubium vocari posset, ne ansa hostibus præberetur, S. Sedem et Concilium impetendi, sicque demum apud populum Christianum hujus Concilii auctoritas labefactaretur,‘quasi veritate et libertate caruerit,’quod his turbatissimis temporibus tanta esset calamitas ut pejor excogitari non possit.”On this we might however observe with all respect, that a greater calamity is quite conceivable,[pg 330]and that is the sanctioning of a doctrine exegetically, dogmatically and historically untenable by an assembly calling itself a Council. The Protest ends with these words:—“Spe freti futurum ut hæ nostræ gravissimæ animadversiones ab Eminentiis vestris benevolenti animo accipiantur, earumque, quae par est, ratio habeatur, nosmet profitemur: Eminentiarum Vestrarum addictissimos et obsequentissimos famulos.”[pg 331]

Twenty-Fourth Letter.Rome, Feb. 20, 1870.—The following classification of the French Bishops here according to their parties may be interesting.The French themselves distinguish three factions, Liberal, Ultramontane, and the Third Party—i.e., those who have signed no address, and have openly refused to do so. To the Liberal section belong Alby, Gaz, Marseilles, Nizza, Cahors, Mende, Perpignan, Bayonne, Montpellier, Valence, Viviers, La Rochelle, Luçon, Besançon, Metz, Nancy, Verdun, Annecy, Autun, Dijon, Grenoble, Paris, Orleans, Rheims, Chalons, S. Brieux, Vannes, Bayeux, Coutances, Evreux—thirty votes altogether.The Ultramontanes are—Rodez, Aire, Nîmes, Angoulême, Poictiers (in the superlative), Belley, St. Diez, Strasburg, Le Puy, Tulle, St. Jean de Maurienne, Langres, St. Claude, Blois, Chartres, Meaux, Versailles,[pg 290]Amiens, Beauvais, Rennes (a malcontent Ultramontane), Seez, Moulins, Toulouse, Carcassonne, Montauban, Laval and Le Mans—twenty-seven votes.In the Third Party, headed by the Cardinal-Archbishop of Rouen, are included Périgueus, Bourges, Tarantaise, Cambray, Arras, Nevers, Troyes, Pamiers, Tours—ten votes.The Bishops of Digne, Fréjus, Toulon and Soissons are described as doubtful.The English Bishops are similarly divided. Manning has only been able to get one single Bishop over to his side. Two, Errington and Clifford, have signed the Address against Infallibility. Six, including Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, form a third party, who decline to sign anything on either side. It is the same with the Irish Bishops. The Romanized Cullen, whom the Pope forced as Primate on the Irish Bishops, with the same view as he imposed Manning on the English Bishops, against their will, is of course an Infallibilist, and would rejoice to enforce this dogma, which they detest, on the educated classes of Ireland by the help of the lower orders. Bishops Moriarty and Leahy (of Dromore) have signed the Petition against Infallibility. Archbishop MacHale of Tuam, and some others with[pg 291]him, belong to the third party, while the majority of the Irish Bishops see in Papal Infallibility a means for increasing their influence over the people. What view the South Italian Bishops take is illustrated by the following anecdote. An Italian statesman spoke to two of them about the immoderate claims contained in theSchema de Ecclesiâ, and asked them whether they really meant to assent to such decrees?“We cannot go against the Holy Father,”was their reply. When he reminded them of the independent attitude of the German Bishops, they replied,“They can take that line, for they are rich.”Another of the South Italians amused the Council by urging that the constant wearing of the long cassock should be enforced, because Christ rose and ascended into heaven in that dress.Since theSchema de Ecclesiâhas been in the hands of the Bishops, it is clear to all that the Council has been convoked simply for the purpose of extending the power of the Pope and strengthening the influence of the Jesuits, and that everything is designed to subserve this one end. The Bishops are to forge chains for binding, first the secular powers, and then themselves and the whole clergy with them. The feeling they are[pg 292]possessed with is a bitter and painful one. They feel outwitted and caught in a trap. They were summoned to Rome, without being told a word of the objects aimed at or the matters to be dealt with; on their arrival they were strung and fixed, like the keys of a harpsichord, into the great conciliar instrument, and they find that they are to be used by the hand of the mighty musician to produce tones which sound to themselves most utterly nauseous. They know well enough that the most eloquent speeches and most forcible arguments don't change a single vote of the majority, who would remain firm and unmoved as the rock of Peter if a Chrysostom or Augustine was among them. In an outburst of disgust at theSchema de Ecclesiâ, a German Prelate, formerly Roman in his sympathies, exclaimed,“ThisSchemadeserves to be thrust down into hell.”One hears these men congratulating their colleagues who stayed at home under a presentiment of what was coming. The news of the adjournment of the Council, begun under such evil auspices, would be welcomed by them with delight.But these reports of an adjournment are rather wishes than hopes. The prorogation would imply an[pg 293]admission that the Council had been a failure through the fault of theCuria, in the perversity of the regulations it imposed on the Bishops, and the extravagance of the measures it brought forward.“Perissent les colonies plutôt qu'un principe”—this saying, uttered in the Paris Convention of 1793, may often be heard here in various applications. The world will be enlightened in a few days by the publication of the new or altered order of business. It is not prorogation that is the immediate business, but the subjection of the minority more than ever to the rule of the majority and its wire-pullers who stand behind it, the outvoting them by majorities.In French circles a paper called theMoniteur Universelis making no small sensation. It contains a detailed account of the proceedings of the Council, drawn up by a learned Frenchman residing here and under the inspiration of French Bishops. It is thoroughly authentic and carefully weighed—far the best and most accurate account of the Council in that language. You may perhaps find room for the following, which substantially confirms and partly supplements and rectifies my own statements:—“The Council of Trent arranged the order of business for itself. In this case just the contrary has been[pg 294]done: everything was pre-arranged and imposed on the Council by the Pope, and even the secretaries and scrutators were named beforehand. No initiative is allowed to the Bishops; the Commission for examining motions is formed of the hottest Infallibilists and members of theCuria, but the final decision is reserved to the Pope. The proposers of a motion are not even allowed to explain and defend it, so that the freedom nominally conceded to the Bishops of proposing measures is rendered purely illusory. By the composition of the four Commissions, elected from Roman lists of names, all work of critical importance is kept in the hands of the few Infallibilists chosen for the purpose by theCuria, to the exclusion of 700 Bishops, among whom are all the German Bishops who signed the Fulda Letter to the Pope, and the most influential French Prelates. In short, all Bishops not known to be thorough-going Infallibilists have been systematically excluded from the Commissions. Very different was it at Trent, where all the Fathers, divided into four Congregations, took a real part in the work. We must add the monstrous disproportion of national representation—the enormous and overwhelming preponderance of the Italians, still further strengthened by the host of Vicars-Apostolic, who can at any[pg 295]moment be deposed by the Propaganda without any legal formality. Thus the Italian Bishops alone outnumber all the French, German, Hungarian and North American together, though these last represent a population nearly three times as large. The weakness of the two French Cardinals, Bonnechose and Mathieu, who ought to have taken the lead, has frustrated the attempt to unite the French Bishops in a national group. Bonnechose consulted Antonelli, who said the French must not assemble in larger bodies than fifteen or at most twenty together. The evil consequences were at once shown in the elections.“The Bishops are compelled by the Pope to hold their sittings in a place where at least a third cannot understand a word that is said, so that,e.g., Cardinal di Pietro long since declared he had not really understood a single speech, and another Cardinal said that not twenty words of all the speeches had reached his ear. A really searching discussion and living interchange of observations and replies is out of the question. No speaker can hope to produce any impression on this audience. And thus the firstSchema, which consists of 140 pages, was the subject of general discussion for weeks without any detailed discussion of the separate[pg 296]articles being arrived at, or any point certainly ascertained, notwithstanding the number of speakers. The only result was a great waste of time, bodily fatigue and a deep discouragement. Had the object been to satiate the assembly with speechesusque ad nauseamit could not have been better managed. It would be something if the Fathers could read the speeches they can't hear, but neither are they allowed to be read; the Bishops may not even print their addresses at their own cost. Thus many of them are wholly deprived of the opportunity of expressing their views, knowing that they will not be heard.“Vigorous preparations were made for two years before the opening of the Council. There is matter enough for ten Councils, but it is only communicated to the Bishops piecemeal, so that they can get no insight into the connection and plan of the separate propositions. Thus a ready-made Council has been put before 700 Bishops, which they are obliged again to unstitch like a web. As the Bishops had no means of gaining previous information, the Council is mostly deaf and dumb, and has at last got driven into a narrow pass from which there is no exit without a thorough alteration of the order of business. No one[pg 297]can say how it will be with the examination of the separate articles of theSchemata, and yet the Council ought to have most carefully weighed every word of decrees which are to be imposed on the world under anathema.”[pg 298]Twenty-Fifth Letter.Rome, Feb. 24, 1870.—Since my last letter, the Council, whose movements for a long time were like those of a tortoise, has made gigantic strides. The Goddess of Insolence (ὕβρις) rules here just as the Greek tragedians—especially Sophocles—describe her. All rumours of an adjournment of the Council were partly well-meant wishes of several Bishops, partly produced by the fact of the Governments—the French in particular—earnestly desiring it. Here in Rome no one of the Vatican party has thought of it for a moment. All who know the real state of things and persons here must be convinced that the Council will certainly be gone through with to the end, either completely—in full accordance with the well-calculated plan sketched out during the last two years for partly Jesuitizing and partly Romanizing everything in the Church, in theology and in the religious life, and carrying[pg 299]out centralization to the utmost extent—or that, at least, there will be no adjournment till the most precious jewel hitherto wanting to the Papal tiara, dogmatic Infallibility, has been inserted there. Then, and not till then, will theCuriahave obtained the irresistible talisman which opens every gate, fulfils every desire and brings every treasure. That dogma is Aladdin's magic lamp for Rome.There are three powers who wish to gain by the Council, and who decide on its proceedings and destiny—the Pope, the Jesuits, and theCuria. Among the members of theCuriathere are indeed very few who have not long since made their calculations, with that appreciation of the realities of life which is peculiar to the Italian nation, and who do not know as well what a dogma is worth for Rome as people know what a man is“worth”in England. Every assailant of the dogma is their personal enemy; he is simply emptying their gold-mine. Nor is the doctrine less valuable and indispensable to the Jesuits, at this day more than before, since they no longer have to fear the rivalry of any other Order in making capital out of the prerogative of Infallibility.As regards the Pope, he has constantly changed in[pg 300]his official life and vacillated from one side to the other, and those about him say that in many, nay in most, things he follows capricious and momentary impulses. But Pius is inflexible and immutable where he fancies he is a divine instrument and has received a divine mission, and that is the case here. He is persuaded that he is ordained by the special favour of God to be the most glorious of all Popes. Among his predecessors there are three to whom he seems to me to have a great likeness. I should say that he had chosen them as models, if I could assume that he knew their history. But Pius has never occupied himself with the past; he is purely the child of his age, and lives only in the present. The three are Innocentx., Clementxi., and above all Pauliv.He has in common with the first his strong experimental belief in his own personal inspiration without any theological culture. He resembles the second in giving himself up to the theological guidance of the Jesuits, and in his highhanded treatment of such Bishops as dare to have an opinion of their own. And just as Pauliv.used to boast that hereafter men would be obliged to tell of the lofty plans conceived by an aged Italian who, as being near his death, might have rested and bewailed[pg 301]his sins,56so does Pius too desire in his old age to make great though peaceful conquests, and to establish the Papal sovereignty as a“rocher du bronze,”to borrow the phrase of another autocrat. With the help of the Council he hopes to render the universal dominion of the Papacy an impregnable fortress, by means of new walls, bastions and batteries, and to hand it down to his successors as an omnipresent and omnipotent power. He believes that the thoughts and desires of his soul are in reality the counsels of God made known to him by inspiration, and that if by following these counsels he accomplishes the deliverance of the Church and of mankind, it is the Hand of God which uses him as an instrument. And why should not Pius see a sign of his election to high and extraordinary destinies in the circumstance of his having already sat longer than any of his 256 predecessors, even Piusvi., on the apostolic throne? A history of his Pontificate has already been written in this sense by one of the Jesuits of theCiviltà,and Pius has the chapters read to him one after the other. I am told that a chapter on the Council is already written. The French Court historiographer, Vertot, who had to describe a Belgian campaign including[pg 302]the siege of a fortress, wrote the history of the siege before it was finished, and said quietly,“Mon siège est fait.”And thus the Jesuit historian of the Pope can already say,“Mon Concile est fait.”And in one sense the Council is indeed finished since the 23d inst.—finished by the new order of business.If the merit of this clever invention is primarily due to the Cardinals on the Commission for revising motions, and the Jesuits who were probably taken into partnership with them, its introduction must be counted among the most eventful acts of Pius, past or future. If it is carried out and adhered to without opposition, it is unquestionably the most conspicuous of all the victories of the Pope. Margotti, the editor of theUnita Cattolica, will hardly be able to find words to do justice to the great day, February 23, 1870, with its boundless wealth of happy results, in the next edition of his work,Le Vittorie della Santa Chiesa sotto Pio IX. ATe Deumwill have to be sung in every Jesuit College of the old and new world.Great anxiety was felt beforehand about the new order of business. It was said that the Sessions were to be something more than mere votings, that there would still be speeches made, that the written memorials[pg 303]would not be so directly thrown into the waste-paper basket, but would be considered and—if they approved of them—made use of by the Commission. But everything will be settled by the Commission and by a simple majority of votes; the minority may talk, but only so long as the Commission and the majority choose to listen to them.Væ victis!The Council belongs to the Italians and the Spaniards, who are in close alliance with them: from henceforth to wish to reject anySchemaor decree brought before it, is like wanting to stop water from flowing downwards. All the proposals of the minority for a change in the order of business have been left unnoticed. It had already been resolved that a debate could only be cut short by the votes of a majority of two-thirds, but this has been reversed. What will the French and Germans do now? This is naturally the question which trembles on every lip and is written on every countenance. Will they simply acquiesce in thefait accompliwith a good grace, and obediently assume the rôle of the Greek Chorus in the drama of the Council—simply to reflect and moralize, but take no active part in the proceedings? The next few days will show. So much every one perceives; the order of business is the noose which, once fixed on the minority,[pg 304]cannot be got out of, and will only be drawn tighter and tighter till it strangles them at last. It is clear that the majority has the hide of a rhinoceros, from which every arrow shot by the Opposition, however skilfully aimed, glances off harmless. Where are now the wise and foolish virgins?“Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out,”must the Germans, French, and Spanish say henceforth to the Italians, and the answer will be more friendly than in the Gospel:“You need not buy any more oil; come over to our side and be content to use our store.”It is hardly necessary to observe to your readers that everything which takes place here turns on the question of Infallibility. The new order of business is merely the outer covering for this kernel.“With Infallibility we have all we desire or need,”say the Italians, if that is gained we may“let the nigger go,”and can dispense with his services for the future. But for German theologians, whose hair stands on end at the new order of business and all it involves, I can find no other consolation than what they may derive from the following Persian tale. An English ambassador sent to Persia—I think it was Morier—paid the usual visits at Teheran, and was introduced[pg 305]to the younger son of the Shah. He found him groping about blindfold in the room, and feeling for the furniture in it. The Prince explained this strange business by telling him that it was the rule for the younger sons to be blinded at the death of the Shah, in order to make them incapable of succeeding, and that he wished to prepare and practise himself beforehand for the fate impending over him.“Go ye, and do likewise.”If the German theologians should still have courage to present an address to their Bishops, the subscription might be,“Morituri vos salutant.”Why have these theologians come to such utter discomfiture?Here one already hears shouts of triumph; the day of retribution will soon come for those proud Transalpines, when they must bend their necks under the Caudine yoke of the new dogma, or await suspension, degradation, etc.If German theology had long been decried and hated by theCuriaand the Italian Jesuits, and if theCiviltàgladly took occasion to pour out its wrath on the scholars of“foggy”Germany, you may conceive the extent this fury has reached in Italian clerical papers and curialist circles, since it has become known that[pg 306]the most influential theologians have pronounced against Infallibility, and that not one—with the exception of a couple of pupils of the Jesuits—has said a word to defend it. It is well that one of the most distinguished Italians, a man whose devotion to the Church is unimpeached even in Rome, and whom the Pope has commissioned to write a history of the Council—I mean Cantù—has some years ago confessed and censured this characteristic of his countrymen.“To call laziness superiority, and evade the trouble of examining questions by depreciating them, this is only too much the habit of Italians, and then they mock at the ponderous, long-winded, hair-splitting Germans. But we must endure the reproach of negligence and thoughtlessness from the Germans, while we blindly accept falsified documents.”57Cantù has hit on the sore place there; for it is precisely their having pointed out the long line of numerous and systematic forgeries, on which the[pg 307]Roman claims of Infallibility are based, and which are used to further other aims of the Italians, that is the main ground of the hatred of the Germans. And now Frenchmen too, like Gratry, come forward and publish these facts over land and sea in their cosmopolitan tongue and clear incisive style.To return to what preceded the publication of the new order of business; in the last sittings of the Council coming events threw their shadows before. The Bishops of Carcassonne and Belley declared roundly that Infallibility must be proclaimed, and in order, said the latter, to restore the menaced or broken unity of the Church. The impatience and vexation of the authorities are constantly on the increase. Manning said there was only one way of stopping the definition, and that was to cut the throats of half the 500 Bishops of the majority. Of course the Prelates who heard him cried out, like the Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, when Count George of Brandenburg wanted to cut off heads for another doctrine,“No heads off! no heads off!”At the last sitting on theSchema de Catechismo, on the 22d, a scene occurred which presages what is to become the regular practice. The Bishop of Namur had said, in reference to some previous attacks[pg 308]on the Breviary, that no one who spoke against it could be a good Christian. For the information of your readers I must premise a few words here. The Breviary is a collection of prayers and lections for the clergy, introduced by Rome, consisting chiefly of psalms and passages from the Bible and the Lives of the Saints.58TheCuriahas used this, like so many other things, as aninstrumentum dominationis, and a number of fables and forgeries devised in the interest of the Papal system have been interpolated into it. The French Church had long since adopted the precaution of employing a Breviary of her own, much better and purer than the Roman. It was against observations made about this in the Council that the harsh comment of the Bishop of Namur was directed.[pg 309]Twenty-Sixth Letter.Rome, Feb. 28, 1870.—Our last letter closed with an account of a scene in the Session of February 22, occasioned by some attacks on the Roman Breviary. The Bishop of Namur had maintained that no one who attacked it could be a good Christian.Haynald was one of those who had censured the present condition of the Breviary, and he now replied to Bishop Gravez that in criticising it he had the Fathers of Trent and the Popes themselves for accomplices (complices). A tempest broke out at these words. But Haynald went further and said, with reference to Bishop Langalerie of Belley, that the majority, with their proposals for new dogmas, were the cause of the disunion which had broken out in the Church, and that it would be much better for the heads of the Church to confine themselves to preserving the ancient doctrines in their purity, instead of adding new[pg 310]ones. The Church had succeeded very well with the old doctrines. At this first open attack in Council on the Infallibilist project the storm grew fiercer, and Capalti seized the bell of the President, De Angelis, rung it violently and forbade the speaker to proceed.“Taceas et ab ambone descendas,”he exclaimed. When Haynald went on all the same, a wild cry broke from the majority. The Archbishop of Calocsa at last came down, and so great was the excitement that the sitting was closed and the next postponed to March 2.Meanwhile more attention and care than before has been devoted in Paris to what is going on at Rome. The Emperor and his present ministers understand the gravity of the situation; they know what would be meant by such journals as theMondeand theUniversdaily appealing to infallible Papal decisions, and under their authority calling in question every institution and law of France, and proving beforehand to their readers that there is no obligation in conscience to submit to them, because the Pope has directly or indirectly signified his disapproval. Archbishop Lavigerie of Algiers brought back word to Cardinal Antonelli, on returning to Rome from his mission, that France was in no condition to tolerate the definition of Infallibility,[pg 311]which might lead to a schism, since not only the whole body of State-officers, but the writers, and even the Faubourg St. Germain, were opposed to the new dogma. Antonelli is not apt to be much influenced by such representations, which he views as mere idle threats; he is spoilt by the courtly flatteries of the ever obsequious M. de Banneville, whom he has managed completely to disarm. He has three devices of domestic diplomacy by which he knows how to make excellent use of both Banneville and Trautmansdorff. At one time he says,“It is not we—Pius, theCuriaand I—who want the dogma, but the foreign Bishops, and we should be encroaching on the freedom of the Council by impeding them. And we ought not to subject ourselves to that reproach.”Then, for a variety, he adopts another line.“The Pope,”he says,“has all he wants already, and the dogma of Infallibility would not give him anything more. As it is, and with a Council assembled, all the decrees emanate from him and receive from him their validity, and he can summon or dissolve the Council at his pleasure, so that it only exists by his will and would crumble into dust without him. It is therefore the interest of the Bishops, not ours, that is in question here, and they will know well why[pg 312]the dogma is so valuable to them.”His third formula is,“Every good Christian believes the doctrine already, and therefore little or nothing will be changed in the Church by defining it, and we have not the least desire to use the new decree for calling in question the existing compacts and Concordats. We shall gladly leave alone the concessions we have already granted.”These resources of the Cardinal have hitherto sufficed. But new powers and demands seem to be coming to the front, which his diplomatic counters will no longer satisfy. I have copies of two letters of Count Daru, of January 18 and February 5. These official expressions of opinion from Paris have made theCiviltàJesuits bitterly angry, and their famous article on thePolicastri, in its original form, contained a violent attack on the French statesmen, who were classed with the other ministers and diplomats in such ill repute at Rome. But this roused the alarm of the supreme authority, and so the Jesuits had to eat their own words, and to substitute for their attack a high commendation of Count Daru and the loyalty of France to the Concordat. There is some good in having the articles of theCiviltàregularly revised in the Vatican. I understand that it is intended at Paris to send a special ambassador to Rome to the Council.[pg 313]Meanwhile the Bishops of the minority are consulting how they shall deal with the new order of business. It was announced to the Fathers at the Session of February 22 that, in accordance with these new regulations, they must hand in all their observations on the first ten chapters of theSchema de Ecclesiâin writing within ten days.Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore has not receded from his ludicrous notion that his Infallibilist formula is milder and more tolerable than that of the 400. He has laid it before the thirty-five French Bishops (of the minority), who have unanimously rejected it. Its essence consists, as was mentioned before, in asserting that everybody must receive with unconditional inward assent every Papal decision on every question of faith or morals or Church life. On all theological principles such faith can only be accorded in cases where all possibility of error is excluded, or, in other words, where a revealed truth is concerned; and therefore to accept this formula would be to set aside the limitation of Papal Infallibility, hitherto recognised even in Rome, to decisions pronouncedex cathedrâ. And thus, in the crush and confusion of the innumerable and often contradictory decisions of Popes, theology would degenerate[pg 314]into a lamentable caricature of a system—“science”it could no longer be termed—involved in hopeless contradictions. If the good Spalding had the slightest acquaintance with Church history, he would know that he was bound, in virtue of his inward assent paid to all Papal decrees, first of all to reject his own orders as invalid.59And now I must notice more particularly what Bishop Ketteler has published against me in some German newspapers. He says that in the telegram of February 13, published in theAllg. Zeitungof February 15, he has found the opportunity he had long desired for convicting the writer of theLetters from Romeof building up“a whole system of lying and deceit.”60It is“an indescribable dishonesty,”a“detestable untruth,”etc. His short letter bristles with such accusations. The untruths he complains of are the following:—[pg 315](1.) The telegram called the statement made by Bishop Ketteler and his ally, Bishop Melchers, a“proposal.”He replies that it was only a“communication.”(2.) It treats the occurrence as a“negotiation,”whereas it was only a“short conference.”(3.) There was no debate with“a serious opposition.”The Bishops indeed had expressed different views, and some had disapproved Döllinger's pronouncement, while the others thought only certain individual Bishops might have occasion to come forward against it. (They accordingly understood Ketteler's“communication”just as my informant did, and therefore spoke out against accepting it.)(4.) Ketteler did not hear any Bishop say, as stated in the telegram, that Döllinger really had the majority of (German) Bishops with him.And now let us compare Ketteler's account, deducting the abusive comments subjoined to every sentence, with the—of course extremely compressed—account in the telegram, and we shall find the two in substantial agreement. The Bishop is obliged to interpolate something into the telegram, in order to find fuel for the fire of holy indignation his delirious fancy has betrayed him[pg 316]into. He quarrels with me fiercely for saying there was a debate and a negotiation, whereas there was only a conference; but I never made use of those words. He says he made no motion, but he himself recounts statements of the Bishops which show clearly that they understood his“communication”as an invitation to do as he did. Only one somewhat important point of difference remains, viz., whether the Bishops named in the telegram said what they are there reported to have said or not. Bishop Ketteler can only say that he did not hear them say it. But considering that in an informal meeting of forty or forty-five persons, broken up into groups, a great deal is said which every one in the room does not hear, and that I received my information the same day from one who was present, I still adhere to my assertion that they did say it. For the rest, I am much indebted to Bishop Ketteler; he assures us that he has long desired an opportunity for saying all the evil he can of me and my Letters. He has now made a grand onset. If he had found anything in the eighteen long Letters before him better suited to his purpose, he would certainly not have taken refuge in such petty trivialities and, like a boy with snowballs, have flung what has turned into water in his hand. He has[pg 317]thus unwillingly given testimony to the truthfulness of my Letters. And for this I pardon him his exaggerated rhetoric, but will not suppress the remark made by an Englishman who knows mankind well:“There are certain women, says Fielding, always ready to raise a cry of‘Murder, fire, rape’and the like, but that means no more in their mouths than any one else means in going over the scale, Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol,”etc.[pg 318]Twenty-Seventh Letter.Rome, March 8, 1870.—“Habemus Papam falli nescium!”The Bishops of the Manning and Deschamps party are in raptures; all Rome, say the Infallibilist devotees, is in the highest spirits. The great doctrine, on which, as all the Jesuits and their disciples assure us, hinges the salvation of humanity and the regeneration of science and literature, was published on March 6 in the form of a supplement to theSchema de Ecclesiâ. The Pope bears witness of himself that he is infallible as teacher of the Church, and the great majority of the Council will readily assent. Already they are exulting in that moment of triumph when the Pope from his throne in the Hall,“sacro Concilio approbante,”and amid the pealing of all the bells in Rome, will proclaim to the world that it is now fortunate enough to possess an infallible teacher and judge in all questions of faith and morals, guaranteed by God Himself. Day and hour for[pg 319]the proclamation will be chosen with the greatest deliberation and foresight, and here another ground for clinging so pertinaciously to the present Council Hall comes out. It was thought quite incomprehensible why“the master”insulted 750 aged men by compelling them, in spite of all wishes and representations and the evidence of his own senses, to hold their sittings in a Chamber so utterly unfit for the purpose. In a city so abounding in churches and halls as Rome this seemed an act rather of ill-tempered caprice than of hospitable care. It was known of course that the previous expectations of the Vatican had been disappointed, that it had been hoped theSchematawould be received by acclamation or by storm, as it were, without discussion, and that the Hall had been chosen on the very ground of its acoustic defects being adapted to that end. Now however a new recommendation of the Hall betrays itself. At a certain hour on a clear and cloudless day the rays of the sun fall exactly on the place where the Pope's throne stands, so that Pius may hope, by help of careful arrangements about the time, to stand in a glory of sunlight at the moment when he announces to the world the divine revelation of his own infallibility. It is on this wise, as we said before, that he has had himself represented[pg 320]in the memorial picture of the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. At the Coronation of Charlesx.of France doves were let fly into the church. And so in Rome also a dove might be trained, so as to make it hover above the Pope at the moment of his apotheosis being proclaimed by his own mouth, which would make the effect quite irresistible.In this state of things the eyes of all men are turned on the Bishops united, or rather not united but only assembled, in Council. The great majority are much in the disposition of the Athenians, when Alexander sent word to them that he had become a god, and wished to be worshipped as such. The popular assembly cried out that, if Alexander really wished to be a god, he was one. So say 300 Bishops:“We eat the Pope's bread and drink his wine and rest under his roof, so—let him be infallible.”And 100 Bishops say:“We are nothing but titular Bishops, with no dioceses or flocks; from whom but the Pope do we get our titles? So—let him be infallible.”Others again say:“We call ourselves Bishops or Vicars-Apostolic by favour of the Pope, and during his good pleasure. Let him then be infallible.”Lastly others say:“TheCuriahas us in its power, and we need it at every step;[pg 321]the Pope must be infallible, since he desires it.”Thus we have 550 born infallibilists. And to them must be added those whom the Italians—e.g., Mamiani—call more curtly than courteously“gli Energumeni stranieri,”prelates of the Manning typeet id genus omne, who really take part as volunteers in this campaign for the triumph of papal infallibility and the domination of souls. Many, like Sieyès formerly, will vote“la mort et sans phrase,”but we shall read of unctuous motives alleged by the volunteers for their votes. They want infallibility for themselves as well as others; for themselves, because then there will be no further need“to dig,”for which they have“neither hand nor foot,”but all doctrines will be received ready made, measured and cut out by the Jesuits and stamped and guaranteed as genuine in the Roman printing-office; for others, because thereby every doubt or suspicion or inconvenient demand in matters of doctrine will be summarily got rid of and suppressed.It is three months to-day since the Council was opened. Viewed from without, the circumstances could hardly have been more favourable; in national diversities and universality of representation the assembly surpassed all former Councils, nor was it so obvious at the[pg 322]beginning that under this bright outside was concealed a crying and iniquitous inequality of representation, and that here again the mastery was placed in the hands of the Italians. But how have all hopes been deceived now, and who had thought of this lamentable upshot!Lamartine desired of his age that Italy should produce“des hommes et non de la poussière humaine.”For three months have these 750 prelates been assembled—in theory the very flower of the Catholic world, the pastors of 180 million souls, men with a rich experience at their back. They were at once separated into two parties, one of 600 and the other of about 150. On which side are the men and on which the human dust? What have these 600 done in the three months they have been together, what have they brought to an issue, and what thoughts or sparks of intelligence have been struck out of this daily contact with so many high dignitaries from the four quarters of the world? Their utter sterility, aimlessness and poverty of thought—their passively resigning themselves to a mere assent to the thoughts and words of others—all this, when watched close at hand, makes a painful impression. It is true that European history since 1789 has accustomed us to the infirmities and follies and the unproductiveness[pg 323]of great deliberative assemblies; it has become an every-day phenomenon, and in our days one's expectations from an ecclesiastical assembly can only be of the most moderate kind. There is no fear there of rash and hasty decisions or revolutionary measures. But La Bruyere's saying,“A great assembly always becomes a rabble,”is verified even at Rome, and the Italians of 1870 have already begun to emulate the example of their ancestors in 1562. Just as the majority at Trent knew how to reduce a disagreeable speaker to silence by wild cries and coughing and scraping with their feet, so is it now at the Vatican Council. It is the humiliating feeling of intellectual impotence and of deficiency alike in knowledge, eloquence and mind, as compared with the minority, from whom almost everything emanates that can be called life or thought in the Council. They feel their abject littleness, in their thankless rôle of being a mere echo of theSchemataand Canons proposed, and having to present in so unadorned and undisguised a form that“sacrificio dell' intelletto”which the Jesuits so eagerly commend. The honour of being afterwards lauded, as one of the 600 organs of the Holy Ghost at this Council, has to be purchased rather dear. But we cannot in fact come to close quarters and converse with[pg 324]these Bishops of the majority, without being reminded of the reply of a Dane to a Frenchman, who said to him (before the Revolution) that the highest Order in France was that of the Holy Ghost.“Notre Saint Esprit est un éléphant,”answered the Dane. But the situation is almost too serious for such thoughts.A synopsis of the outstanding measures has been presented to the Council. There are altogether 51Schemata: 3 on“Faith,”28 on“Discipline,”18 on“Religious Orders,”2 on“Oriental Church affairs:”of these 39 have not yet been distributed, and 46 not discussed; 12 are in the hands of the Bishops, of which 5 have been already discussed and are to be again presented and examined, after being modified by the Commission. This is obviously matter enough for two years' work; yet the Council Hall and the hitherto irresistible and invulnerable majority will conspire to push the 51Schemataexpeditiously through the Council, unabbreviated and hardly altered. If only the master at last praises and rewards his servants!Meanwhile 34 French Bishops have signed a Statement of Protest against the new order of business. I hear that the perversity of deciding doctrines by counting heads is emphatically dwelt on. The same document[pg 325]has been subscribed by 33 German Bishops, with certain additions. Cardinals Mathieu and Rauscher, while professing their agreement, did not think it well to sign. Some 10 or 12 Germans have accepted a shorter but more precise and pointed address, maintaining the same principles. Some Orientals too have signed, while the deliberations of the Americans, on the other hand, came to no result.Such declarations are necessary for the outer world and for the satisfaction of their own consciences, but they can hardly be expected to produce any effect, nor do the signataries themselves anticipate any important change being made in the newregolamento. Would that their representations were formal protests, declaring that they would take no further part in an assembly lacking the necessary conditions of a true Council! But neither the French nor Germans could resolve on that. It would be hard even for a man like Dupanloup, who may be reckoned a leader of the Opposition, openly to contradict his own earlier writings about the Pope. The question suggests itself, If Pius, before his infallibility is made a dogma, has said,“I am the way, the truth, and the life,”what will he say when his apotheosis is accomplished? What words of human language[pg 326]will suffice adequately to denote the sublimity of his position? A former saying of a member of the Italian aristocracy, well known for his witty remarks, occurs to me,“Gli altri Papi credevano esser Vicarii di Christo, ma questo Papa crede che nostro Signore sia il suo Vicario in cielo.”We live here in the place whereof Tacitus wrote eighteen centuries ago,“Cupido dominandi cunctis affectibus flagrantior est.”61If infallibility is defined, every member of the Roman Congregations has the pleasing certainty that he possesses“divinæ particulam auræ.”Pius is as firm and resolved as ever; the Jesuits have told him that, if the new dogma produces any confusion and scandal in the Church, it matters nothing—other dogmatic decisions have led to great confusion, but have remained triumphant; in a hundred years all will be quiet. Father Piccirillo, the editor of theCiviltàand special favourite of Pius, has consoled other prelates in the same way.TheSchema de Ecclesiâhas been compared with the lecture notes of a Jesuit Professor at the Collegio Romano, and the two are shown to agree precisely.[pg 327]Even the most abjectPlacet-men of the majority feel rather ashamed of this; they had not quite expected to be summoned to Rome, simply in order to formulate the lecture notes of a Jesuit into dogmatic decrees for the whole Church.An individual so insignificant intellectually, that I never expected to have any occasion for mentioning his name, and who is regarded in German circles as the standing joke of the Council, a certain Wolanski, has just been placed on the Congregation of the Index, as censor for German books. He would be utterly incompetent even to transcribe the work of a German theologian for the press. But in Rome they like, from time to time, to give a kick of this sort to foreigners.Postscript.—I have just been put in a position to tell you something of the contents of the episcopal protest against the new order of business. In respect to the thirteenth article it is objected, that in former Councils a method of voting simply designed to secure expedition (“eo expedito modo”) has never been adopted—a form“quo nullus certe alius gravitati et maturitati deliberationis, imo et ipsi libertati minus favet.”It is added, that even in political assemblies the right is[pg 328]granted of demanding that votes should be taken by calling names. It is not rapidity of decision, but prudence and the utmost possible security, that is the important point.“Quod in Concilio maxime refert, non est ut cito res expediatur, sed ut caute et tutissime peragatur. Longe satius est paucas quæstiones expendere et prudenter solvere, quam multo numerosiores proponere et decurtatis discussionibus suffragiisque præcipitanter collectis res tam graves irrevocabiliter definire.”The document goes on to protest against the regulation for first counting the votes of those who assent to the proposed decrees, and not till after this has been done of those who reject them. This is quite wrong;“Cum in quæstionibus fidei tutius sit sistere et definitionem differre, quam temere progredi, ideo conditio dissentientium favorabilior esse debet, et ipsis prioritas in dandis suffragiis excedenda esset.”The memorialists further desire that, in the definition of a dogma or the establishment of a canon armed with anathema, the votes should be orally given byPlacetandNon placet, not by rising and sitting down. And then great stress is laid on the point of dogmas not being decided by a mere majority but only by moral unanimity, so that any decree opposed by a considerable number of[pg 329]Bishops may be held to be rejected. The Bishops say,“Cum dogmata constent Ecclesiarum consensu, ut ait Bellarminus,”moral unanimity is necessary. There is a further demand or request of the Bishops,“ut suffragia patrum non supertoto Schemateet quasiin globo, sed seorsim super unâquâque definitione, super unoquoque Canone, perPlacetautNon placetsigillatim rogentur et edantur.”The Fathers should also be free, according to the Pope's previous arrangement, to give in their remarks in writing. But the following is the most important passage:—“Id autem quod spectat ad numerum suffragiorum requisitum ut quæstiones dogmaticæ solvantur, in quo quidem rei summa est et totius Concilii cardo vertitur, ita grave est, ut nonnisi admitteretur, quod reverenter et enixe postulamus, conscientia nostra intolerabili pondere premeretur. Timeremus, ne Concilii Œcumenici character in dubium vocari posset, ne ansa hostibus præberetur, S. Sedem et Concilium impetendi, sicque demum apud populum Christianum hujus Concilii auctoritas labefactaretur,‘quasi veritate et libertate caruerit,’quod his turbatissimis temporibus tanta esset calamitas ut pejor excogitari non possit.”On this we might however observe with all respect, that a greater calamity is quite conceivable,[pg 330]and that is the sanctioning of a doctrine exegetically, dogmatically and historically untenable by an assembly calling itself a Council. The Protest ends with these words:—“Spe freti futurum ut hæ nostræ gravissimæ animadversiones ab Eminentiis vestris benevolenti animo accipiantur, earumque, quae par est, ratio habeatur, nosmet profitemur: Eminentiarum Vestrarum addictissimos et obsequentissimos famulos.”[pg 331]

Twenty-Fourth Letter.Rome, Feb. 20, 1870.—The following classification of the French Bishops here according to their parties may be interesting.The French themselves distinguish three factions, Liberal, Ultramontane, and the Third Party—i.e., those who have signed no address, and have openly refused to do so. To the Liberal section belong Alby, Gaz, Marseilles, Nizza, Cahors, Mende, Perpignan, Bayonne, Montpellier, Valence, Viviers, La Rochelle, Luçon, Besançon, Metz, Nancy, Verdun, Annecy, Autun, Dijon, Grenoble, Paris, Orleans, Rheims, Chalons, S. Brieux, Vannes, Bayeux, Coutances, Evreux—thirty votes altogether.The Ultramontanes are—Rodez, Aire, Nîmes, Angoulême, Poictiers (in the superlative), Belley, St. Diez, Strasburg, Le Puy, Tulle, St. Jean de Maurienne, Langres, St. Claude, Blois, Chartres, Meaux, Versailles,[pg 290]Amiens, Beauvais, Rennes (a malcontent Ultramontane), Seez, Moulins, Toulouse, Carcassonne, Montauban, Laval and Le Mans—twenty-seven votes.In the Third Party, headed by the Cardinal-Archbishop of Rouen, are included Périgueus, Bourges, Tarantaise, Cambray, Arras, Nevers, Troyes, Pamiers, Tours—ten votes.The Bishops of Digne, Fréjus, Toulon and Soissons are described as doubtful.The English Bishops are similarly divided. Manning has only been able to get one single Bishop over to his side. Two, Errington and Clifford, have signed the Address against Infallibility. Six, including Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, form a third party, who decline to sign anything on either side. It is the same with the Irish Bishops. The Romanized Cullen, whom the Pope forced as Primate on the Irish Bishops, with the same view as he imposed Manning on the English Bishops, against their will, is of course an Infallibilist, and would rejoice to enforce this dogma, which they detest, on the educated classes of Ireland by the help of the lower orders. Bishops Moriarty and Leahy (of Dromore) have signed the Petition against Infallibility. Archbishop MacHale of Tuam, and some others with[pg 291]him, belong to the third party, while the majority of the Irish Bishops see in Papal Infallibility a means for increasing their influence over the people. What view the South Italian Bishops take is illustrated by the following anecdote. An Italian statesman spoke to two of them about the immoderate claims contained in theSchema de Ecclesiâ, and asked them whether they really meant to assent to such decrees?“We cannot go against the Holy Father,”was their reply. When he reminded them of the independent attitude of the German Bishops, they replied,“They can take that line, for they are rich.”Another of the South Italians amused the Council by urging that the constant wearing of the long cassock should be enforced, because Christ rose and ascended into heaven in that dress.Since theSchema de Ecclesiâhas been in the hands of the Bishops, it is clear to all that the Council has been convoked simply for the purpose of extending the power of the Pope and strengthening the influence of the Jesuits, and that everything is designed to subserve this one end. The Bishops are to forge chains for binding, first the secular powers, and then themselves and the whole clergy with them. The feeling they are[pg 292]possessed with is a bitter and painful one. They feel outwitted and caught in a trap. They were summoned to Rome, without being told a word of the objects aimed at or the matters to be dealt with; on their arrival they were strung and fixed, like the keys of a harpsichord, into the great conciliar instrument, and they find that they are to be used by the hand of the mighty musician to produce tones which sound to themselves most utterly nauseous. They know well enough that the most eloquent speeches and most forcible arguments don't change a single vote of the majority, who would remain firm and unmoved as the rock of Peter if a Chrysostom or Augustine was among them. In an outburst of disgust at theSchema de Ecclesiâ, a German Prelate, formerly Roman in his sympathies, exclaimed,“ThisSchemadeserves to be thrust down into hell.”One hears these men congratulating their colleagues who stayed at home under a presentiment of what was coming. The news of the adjournment of the Council, begun under such evil auspices, would be welcomed by them with delight.But these reports of an adjournment are rather wishes than hopes. The prorogation would imply an[pg 293]admission that the Council had been a failure through the fault of theCuria, in the perversity of the regulations it imposed on the Bishops, and the extravagance of the measures it brought forward.“Perissent les colonies plutôt qu'un principe”—this saying, uttered in the Paris Convention of 1793, may often be heard here in various applications. The world will be enlightened in a few days by the publication of the new or altered order of business. It is not prorogation that is the immediate business, but the subjection of the minority more than ever to the rule of the majority and its wire-pullers who stand behind it, the outvoting them by majorities.In French circles a paper called theMoniteur Universelis making no small sensation. It contains a detailed account of the proceedings of the Council, drawn up by a learned Frenchman residing here and under the inspiration of French Bishops. It is thoroughly authentic and carefully weighed—far the best and most accurate account of the Council in that language. You may perhaps find room for the following, which substantially confirms and partly supplements and rectifies my own statements:—“The Council of Trent arranged the order of business for itself. In this case just the contrary has been[pg 294]done: everything was pre-arranged and imposed on the Council by the Pope, and even the secretaries and scrutators were named beforehand. No initiative is allowed to the Bishops; the Commission for examining motions is formed of the hottest Infallibilists and members of theCuria, but the final decision is reserved to the Pope. The proposers of a motion are not even allowed to explain and defend it, so that the freedom nominally conceded to the Bishops of proposing measures is rendered purely illusory. By the composition of the four Commissions, elected from Roman lists of names, all work of critical importance is kept in the hands of the few Infallibilists chosen for the purpose by theCuria, to the exclusion of 700 Bishops, among whom are all the German Bishops who signed the Fulda Letter to the Pope, and the most influential French Prelates. In short, all Bishops not known to be thorough-going Infallibilists have been systematically excluded from the Commissions. Very different was it at Trent, where all the Fathers, divided into four Congregations, took a real part in the work. We must add the monstrous disproportion of national representation—the enormous and overwhelming preponderance of the Italians, still further strengthened by the host of Vicars-Apostolic, who can at any[pg 295]moment be deposed by the Propaganda without any legal formality. Thus the Italian Bishops alone outnumber all the French, German, Hungarian and North American together, though these last represent a population nearly three times as large. The weakness of the two French Cardinals, Bonnechose and Mathieu, who ought to have taken the lead, has frustrated the attempt to unite the French Bishops in a national group. Bonnechose consulted Antonelli, who said the French must not assemble in larger bodies than fifteen or at most twenty together. The evil consequences were at once shown in the elections.“The Bishops are compelled by the Pope to hold their sittings in a place where at least a third cannot understand a word that is said, so that,e.g., Cardinal di Pietro long since declared he had not really understood a single speech, and another Cardinal said that not twenty words of all the speeches had reached his ear. A really searching discussion and living interchange of observations and replies is out of the question. No speaker can hope to produce any impression on this audience. And thus the firstSchema, which consists of 140 pages, was the subject of general discussion for weeks without any detailed discussion of the separate[pg 296]articles being arrived at, or any point certainly ascertained, notwithstanding the number of speakers. The only result was a great waste of time, bodily fatigue and a deep discouragement. Had the object been to satiate the assembly with speechesusque ad nauseamit could not have been better managed. It would be something if the Fathers could read the speeches they can't hear, but neither are they allowed to be read; the Bishops may not even print their addresses at their own cost. Thus many of them are wholly deprived of the opportunity of expressing their views, knowing that they will not be heard.“Vigorous preparations were made for two years before the opening of the Council. There is matter enough for ten Councils, but it is only communicated to the Bishops piecemeal, so that they can get no insight into the connection and plan of the separate propositions. Thus a ready-made Council has been put before 700 Bishops, which they are obliged again to unstitch like a web. As the Bishops had no means of gaining previous information, the Council is mostly deaf and dumb, and has at last got driven into a narrow pass from which there is no exit without a thorough alteration of the order of business. No one[pg 297]can say how it will be with the examination of the separate articles of theSchemata, and yet the Council ought to have most carefully weighed every word of decrees which are to be imposed on the world under anathema.”

Rome, Feb. 20, 1870.—The following classification of the French Bishops here according to their parties may be interesting.

The French themselves distinguish three factions, Liberal, Ultramontane, and the Third Party—i.e., those who have signed no address, and have openly refused to do so. To the Liberal section belong Alby, Gaz, Marseilles, Nizza, Cahors, Mende, Perpignan, Bayonne, Montpellier, Valence, Viviers, La Rochelle, Luçon, Besançon, Metz, Nancy, Verdun, Annecy, Autun, Dijon, Grenoble, Paris, Orleans, Rheims, Chalons, S. Brieux, Vannes, Bayeux, Coutances, Evreux—thirty votes altogether.

The Ultramontanes are—Rodez, Aire, Nîmes, Angoulême, Poictiers (in the superlative), Belley, St. Diez, Strasburg, Le Puy, Tulle, St. Jean de Maurienne, Langres, St. Claude, Blois, Chartres, Meaux, Versailles,[pg 290]Amiens, Beauvais, Rennes (a malcontent Ultramontane), Seez, Moulins, Toulouse, Carcassonne, Montauban, Laval and Le Mans—twenty-seven votes.

In the Third Party, headed by the Cardinal-Archbishop of Rouen, are included Périgueus, Bourges, Tarantaise, Cambray, Arras, Nevers, Troyes, Pamiers, Tours—ten votes.

The Bishops of Digne, Fréjus, Toulon and Soissons are described as doubtful.

The English Bishops are similarly divided. Manning has only been able to get one single Bishop over to his side. Two, Errington and Clifford, have signed the Address against Infallibility. Six, including Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, form a third party, who decline to sign anything on either side. It is the same with the Irish Bishops. The Romanized Cullen, whom the Pope forced as Primate on the Irish Bishops, with the same view as he imposed Manning on the English Bishops, against their will, is of course an Infallibilist, and would rejoice to enforce this dogma, which they detest, on the educated classes of Ireland by the help of the lower orders. Bishops Moriarty and Leahy (of Dromore) have signed the Petition against Infallibility. Archbishop MacHale of Tuam, and some others with[pg 291]him, belong to the third party, while the majority of the Irish Bishops see in Papal Infallibility a means for increasing their influence over the people. What view the South Italian Bishops take is illustrated by the following anecdote. An Italian statesman spoke to two of them about the immoderate claims contained in theSchema de Ecclesiâ, and asked them whether they really meant to assent to such decrees?“We cannot go against the Holy Father,”was their reply. When he reminded them of the independent attitude of the German Bishops, they replied,“They can take that line, for they are rich.”Another of the South Italians amused the Council by urging that the constant wearing of the long cassock should be enforced, because Christ rose and ascended into heaven in that dress.

Since theSchema de Ecclesiâhas been in the hands of the Bishops, it is clear to all that the Council has been convoked simply for the purpose of extending the power of the Pope and strengthening the influence of the Jesuits, and that everything is designed to subserve this one end. The Bishops are to forge chains for binding, first the secular powers, and then themselves and the whole clergy with them. The feeling they are[pg 292]possessed with is a bitter and painful one. They feel outwitted and caught in a trap. They were summoned to Rome, without being told a word of the objects aimed at or the matters to be dealt with; on their arrival they were strung and fixed, like the keys of a harpsichord, into the great conciliar instrument, and they find that they are to be used by the hand of the mighty musician to produce tones which sound to themselves most utterly nauseous. They know well enough that the most eloquent speeches and most forcible arguments don't change a single vote of the majority, who would remain firm and unmoved as the rock of Peter if a Chrysostom or Augustine was among them. In an outburst of disgust at theSchema de Ecclesiâ, a German Prelate, formerly Roman in his sympathies, exclaimed,“ThisSchemadeserves to be thrust down into hell.”One hears these men congratulating their colleagues who stayed at home under a presentiment of what was coming. The news of the adjournment of the Council, begun under such evil auspices, would be welcomed by them with delight.

But these reports of an adjournment are rather wishes than hopes. The prorogation would imply an[pg 293]admission that the Council had been a failure through the fault of theCuria, in the perversity of the regulations it imposed on the Bishops, and the extravagance of the measures it brought forward.“Perissent les colonies plutôt qu'un principe”—this saying, uttered in the Paris Convention of 1793, may often be heard here in various applications. The world will be enlightened in a few days by the publication of the new or altered order of business. It is not prorogation that is the immediate business, but the subjection of the minority more than ever to the rule of the majority and its wire-pullers who stand behind it, the outvoting them by majorities.

In French circles a paper called theMoniteur Universelis making no small sensation. It contains a detailed account of the proceedings of the Council, drawn up by a learned Frenchman residing here and under the inspiration of French Bishops. It is thoroughly authentic and carefully weighed—far the best and most accurate account of the Council in that language. You may perhaps find room for the following, which substantially confirms and partly supplements and rectifies my own statements:—

“The Council of Trent arranged the order of business for itself. In this case just the contrary has been[pg 294]done: everything was pre-arranged and imposed on the Council by the Pope, and even the secretaries and scrutators were named beforehand. No initiative is allowed to the Bishops; the Commission for examining motions is formed of the hottest Infallibilists and members of theCuria, but the final decision is reserved to the Pope. The proposers of a motion are not even allowed to explain and defend it, so that the freedom nominally conceded to the Bishops of proposing measures is rendered purely illusory. By the composition of the four Commissions, elected from Roman lists of names, all work of critical importance is kept in the hands of the few Infallibilists chosen for the purpose by theCuria, to the exclusion of 700 Bishops, among whom are all the German Bishops who signed the Fulda Letter to the Pope, and the most influential French Prelates. In short, all Bishops not known to be thorough-going Infallibilists have been systematically excluded from the Commissions. Very different was it at Trent, where all the Fathers, divided into four Congregations, took a real part in the work. We must add the monstrous disproportion of national representation—the enormous and overwhelming preponderance of the Italians, still further strengthened by the host of Vicars-Apostolic, who can at any[pg 295]moment be deposed by the Propaganda without any legal formality. Thus the Italian Bishops alone outnumber all the French, German, Hungarian and North American together, though these last represent a population nearly three times as large. The weakness of the two French Cardinals, Bonnechose and Mathieu, who ought to have taken the lead, has frustrated the attempt to unite the French Bishops in a national group. Bonnechose consulted Antonelli, who said the French must not assemble in larger bodies than fifteen or at most twenty together. The evil consequences were at once shown in the elections.

“The Bishops are compelled by the Pope to hold their sittings in a place where at least a third cannot understand a word that is said, so that,e.g., Cardinal di Pietro long since declared he had not really understood a single speech, and another Cardinal said that not twenty words of all the speeches had reached his ear. A really searching discussion and living interchange of observations and replies is out of the question. No speaker can hope to produce any impression on this audience. And thus the firstSchema, which consists of 140 pages, was the subject of general discussion for weeks without any detailed discussion of the separate[pg 296]articles being arrived at, or any point certainly ascertained, notwithstanding the number of speakers. The only result was a great waste of time, bodily fatigue and a deep discouragement. Had the object been to satiate the assembly with speechesusque ad nauseamit could not have been better managed. It would be something if the Fathers could read the speeches they can't hear, but neither are they allowed to be read; the Bishops may not even print their addresses at their own cost. Thus many of them are wholly deprived of the opportunity of expressing their views, knowing that they will not be heard.

“Vigorous preparations were made for two years before the opening of the Council. There is matter enough for ten Councils, but it is only communicated to the Bishops piecemeal, so that they can get no insight into the connection and plan of the separate propositions. Thus a ready-made Council has been put before 700 Bishops, which they are obliged again to unstitch like a web. As the Bishops had no means of gaining previous information, the Council is mostly deaf and dumb, and has at last got driven into a narrow pass from which there is no exit without a thorough alteration of the order of business. No one[pg 297]can say how it will be with the examination of the separate articles of theSchemata, and yet the Council ought to have most carefully weighed every word of decrees which are to be imposed on the world under anathema.”

Twenty-Fifth Letter.Rome, Feb. 24, 1870.—Since my last letter, the Council, whose movements for a long time were like those of a tortoise, has made gigantic strides. The Goddess of Insolence (ὕβρις) rules here just as the Greek tragedians—especially Sophocles—describe her. All rumours of an adjournment of the Council were partly well-meant wishes of several Bishops, partly produced by the fact of the Governments—the French in particular—earnestly desiring it. Here in Rome no one of the Vatican party has thought of it for a moment. All who know the real state of things and persons here must be convinced that the Council will certainly be gone through with to the end, either completely—in full accordance with the well-calculated plan sketched out during the last two years for partly Jesuitizing and partly Romanizing everything in the Church, in theology and in the religious life, and carrying[pg 299]out centralization to the utmost extent—or that, at least, there will be no adjournment till the most precious jewel hitherto wanting to the Papal tiara, dogmatic Infallibility, has been inserted there. Then, and not till then, will theCuriahave obtained the irresistible talisman which opens every gate, fulfils every desire and brings every treasure. That dogma is Aladdin's magic lamp for Rome.There are three powers who wish to gain by the Council, and who decide on its proceedings and destiny—the Pope, the Jesuits, and theCuria. Among the members of theCuriathere are indeed very few who have not long since made their calculations, with that appreciation of the realities of life which is peculiar to the Italian nation, and who do not know as well what a dogma is worth for Rome as people know what a man is“worth”in England. Every assailant of the dogma is their personal enemy; he is simply emptying their gold-mine. Nor is the doctrine less valuable and indispensable to the Jesuits, at this day more than before, since they no longer have to fear the rivalry of any other Order in making capital out of the prerogative of Infallibility.As regards the Pope, he has constantly changed in[pg 300]his official life and vacillated from one side to the other, and those about him say that in many, nay in most, things he follows capricious and momentary impulses. But Pius is inflexible and immutable where he fancies he is a divine instrument and has received a divine mission, and that is the case here. He is persuaded that he is ordained by the special favour of God to be the most glorious of all Popes. Among his predecessors there are three to whom he seems to me to have a great likeness. I should say that he had chosen them as models, if I could assume that he knew their history. But Pius has never occupied himself with the past; he is purely the child of his age, and lives only in the present. The three are Innocentx., Clementxi., and above all Pauliv.He has in common with the first his strong experimental belief in his own personal inspiration without any theological culture. He resembles the second in giving himself up to the theological guidance of the Jesuits, and in his highhanded treatment of such Bishops as dare to have an opinion of their own. And just as Pauliv.used to boast that hereafter men would be obliged to tell of the lofty plans conceived by an aged Italian who, as being near his death, might have rested and bewailed[pg 301]his sins,56so does Pius too desire in his old age to make great though peaceful conquests, and to establish the Papal sovereignty as a“rocher du bronze,”to borrow the phrase of another autocrat. With the help of the Council he hopes to render the universal dominion of the Papacy an impregnable fortress, by means of new walls, bastions and batteries, and to hand it down to his successors as an omnipresent and omnipotent power. He believes that the thoughts and desires of his soul are in reality the counsels of God made known to him by inspiration, and that if by following these counsels he accomplishes the deliverance of the Church and of mankind, it is the Hand of God which uses him as an instrument. And why should not Pius see a sign of his election to high and extraordinary destinies in the circumstance of his having already sat longer than any of his 256 predecessors, even Piusvi., on the apostolic throne? A history of his Pontificate has already been written in this sense by one of the Jesuits of theCiviltà,and Pius has the chapters read to him one after the other. I am told that a chapter on the Council is already written. The French Court historiographer, Vertot, who had to describe a Belgian campaign including[pg 302]the siege of a fortress, wrote the history of the siege before it was finished, and said quietly,“Mon siège est fait.”And thus the Jesuit historian of the Pope can already say,“Mon Concile est fait.”And in one sense the Council is indeed finished since the 23d inst.—finished by the new order of business.If the merit of this clever invention is primarily due to the Cardinals on the Commission for revising motions, and the Jesuits who were probably taken into partnership with them, its introduction must be counted among the most eventful acts of Pius, past or future. If it is carried out and adhered to without opposition, it is unquestionably the most conspicuous of all the victories of the Pope. Margotti, the editor of theUnita Cattolica, will hardly be able to find words to do justice to the great day, February 23, 1870, with its boundless wealth of happy results, in the next edition of his work,Le Vittorie della Santa Chiesa sotto Pio IX. ATe Deumwill have to be sung in every Jesuit College of the old and new world.Great anxiety was felt beforehand about the new order of business. It was said that the Sessions were to be something more than mere votings, that there would still be speeches made, that the written memorials[pg 303]would not be so directly thrown into the waste-paper basket, but would be considered and—if they approved of them—made use of by the Commission. But everything will be settled by the Commission and by a simple majority of votes; the minority may talk, but only so long as the Commission and the majority choose to listen to them.Væ victis!The Council belongs to the Italians and the Spaniards, who are in close alliance with them: from henceforth to wish to reject anySchemaor decree brought before it, is like wanting to stop water from flowing downwards. All the proposals of the minority for a change in the order of business have been left unnoticed. It had already been resolved that a debate could only be cut short by the votes of a majority of two-thirds, but this has been reversed. What will the French and Germans do now? This is naturally the question which trembles on every lip and is written on every countenance. Will they simply acquiesce in thefait accompliwith a good grace, and obediently assume the rôle of the Greek Chorus in the drama of the Council—simply to reflect and moralize, but take no active part in the proceedings? The next few days will show. So much every one perceives; the order of business is the noose which, once fixed on the minority,[pg 304]cannot be got out of, and will only be drawn tighter and tighter till it strangles them at last. It is clear that the majority has the hide of a rhinoceros, from which every arrow shot by the Opposition, however skilfully aimed, glances off harmless. Where are now the wise and foolish virgins?“Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out,”must the Germans, French, and Spanish say henceforth to the Italians, and the answer will be more friendly than in the Gospel:“You need not buy any more oil; come over to our side and be content to use our store.”It is hardly necessary to observe to your readers that everything which takes place here turns on the question of Infallibility. The new order of business is merely the outer covering for this kernel.“With Infallibility we have all we desire or need,”say the Italians, if that is gained we may“let the nigger go,”and can dispense with his services for the future. But for German theologians, whose hair stands on end at the new order of business and all it involves, I can find no other consolation than what they may derive from the following Persian tale. An English ambassador sent to Persia—I think it was Morier—paid the usual visits at Teheran, and was introduced[pg 305]to the younger son of the Shah. He found him groping about blindfold in the room, and feeling for the furniture in it. The Prince explained this strange business by telling him that it was the rule for the younger sons to be blinded at the death of the Shah, in order to make them incapable of succeeding, and that he wished to prepare and practise himself beforehand for the fate impending over him.“Go ye, and do likewise.”If the German theologians should still have courage to present an address to their Bishops, the subscription might be,“Morituri vos salutant.”Why have these theologians come to such utter discomfiture?Here one already hears shouts of triumph; the day of retribution will soon come for those proud Transalpines, when they must bend their necks under the Caudine yoke of the new dogma, or await suspension, degradation, etc.If German theology had long been decried and hated by theCuriaand the Italian Jesuits, and if theCiviltàgladly took occasion to pour out its wrath on the scholars of“foggy”Germany, you may conceive the extent this fury has reached in Italian clerical papers and curialist circles, since it has become known that[pg 306]the most influential theologians have pronounced against Infallibility, and that not one—with the exception of a couple of pupils of the Jesuits—has said a word to defend it. It is well that one of the most distinguished Italians, a man whose devotion to the Church is unimpeached even in Rome, and whom the Pope has commissioned to write a history of the Council—I mean Cantù—has some years ago confessed and censured this characteristic of his countrymen.“To call laziness superiority, and evade the trouble of examining questions by depreciating them, this is only too much the habit of Italians, and then they mock at the ponderous, long-winded, hair-splitting Germans. But we must endure the reproach of negligence and thoughtlessness from the Germans, while we blindly accept falsified documents.”57Cantù has hit on the sore place there; for it is precisely their having pointed out the long line of numerous and systematic forgeries, on which the[pg 307]Roman claims of Infallibility are based, and which are used to further other aims of the Italians, that is the main ground of the hatred of the Germans. And now Frenchmen too, like Gratry, come forward and publish these facts over land and sea in their cosmopolitan tongue and clear incisive style.To return to what preceded the publication of the new order of business; in the last sittings of the Council coming events threw their shadows before. The Bishops of Carcassonne and Belley declared roundly that Infallibility must be proclaimed, and in order, said the latter, to restore the menaced or broken unity of the Church. The impatience and vexation of the authorities are constantly on the increase. Manning said there was only one way of stopping the definition, and that was to cut the throats of half the 500 Bishops of the majority. Of course the Prelates who heard him cried out, like the Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, when Count George of Brandenburg wanted to cut off heads for another doctrine,“No heads off! no heads off!”At the last sitting on theSchema de Catechismo, on the 22d, a scene occurred which presages what is to become the regular practice. The Bishop of Namur had said, in reference to some previous attacks[pg 308]on the Breviary, that no one who spoke against it could be a good Christian. For the information of your readers I must premise a few words here. The Breviary is a collection of prayers and lections for the clergy, introduced by Rome, consisting chiefly of psalms and passages from the Bible and the Lives of the Saints.58TheCuriahas used this, like so many other things, as aninstrumentum dominationis, and a number of fables and forgeries devised in the interest of the Papal system have been interpolated into it. The French Church had long since adopted the precaution of employing a Breviary of her own, much better and purer than the Roman. It was against observations made about this in the Council that the harsh comment of the Bishop of Namur was directed.

Rome, Feb. 24, 1870.—Since my last letter, the Council, whose movements for a long time were like those of a tortoise, has made gigantic strides. The Goddess of Insolence (ὕβρις) rules here just as the Greek tragedians—especially Sophocles—describe her. All rumours of an adjournment of the Council were partly well-meant wishes of several Bishops, partly produced by the fact of the Governments—the French in particular—earnestly desiring it. Here in Rome no one of the Vatican party has thought of it for a moment. All who know the real state of things and persons here must be convinced that the Council will certainly be gone through with to the end, either completely—in full accordance with the well-calculated plan sketched out during the last two years for partly Jesuitizing and partly Romanizing everything in the Church, in theology and in the religious life, and carrying[pg 299]out centralization to the utmost extent—or that, at least, there will be no adjournment till the most precious jewel hitherto wanting to the Papal tiara, dogmatic Infallibility, has been inserted there. Then, and not till then, will theCuriahave obtained the irresistible talisman which opens every gate, fulfils every desire and brings every treasure. That dogma is Aladdin's magic lamp for Rome.

There are three powers who wish to gain by the Council, and who decide on its proceedings and destiny—the Pope, the Jesuits, and theCuria. Among the members of theCuriathere are indeed very few who have not long since made their calculations, with that appreciation of the realities of life which is peculiar to the Italian nation, and who do not know as well what a dogma is worth for Rome as people know what a man is“worth”in England. Every assailant of the dogma is their personal enemy; he is simply emptying their gold-mine. Nor is the doctrine less valuable and indispensable to the Jesuits, at this day more than before, since they no longer have to fear the rivalry of any other Order in making capital out of the prerogative of Infallibility.

As regards the Pope, he has constantly changed in[pg 300]his official life and vacillated from one side to the other, and those about him say that in many, nay in most, things he follows capricious and momentary impulses. But Pius is inflexible and immutable where he fancies he is a divine instrument and has received a divine mission, and that is the case here. He is persuaded that he is ordained by the special favour of God to be the most glorious of all Popes. Among his predecessors there are three to whom he seems to me to have a great likeness. I should say that he had chosen them as models, if I could assume that he knew their history. But Pius has never occupied himself with the past; he is purely the child of his age, and lives only in the present. The three are Innocentx., Clementxi., and above all Pauliv.He has in common with the first his strong experimental belief in his own personal inspiration without any theological culture. He resembles the second in giving himself up to the theological guidance of the Jesuits, and in his highhanded treatment of such Bishops as dare to have an opinion of their own. And just as Pauliv.used to boast that hereafter men would be obliged to tell of the lofty plans conceived by an aged Italian who, as being near his death, might have rested and bewailed[pg 301]his sins,56so does Pius too desire in his old age to make great though peaceful conquests, and to establish the Papal sovereignty as a“rocher du bronze,”to borrow the phrase of another autocrat. With the help of the Council he hopes to render the universal dominion of the Papacy an impregnable fortress, by means of new walls, bastions and batteries, and to hand it down to his successors as an omnipresent and omnipotent power. He believes that the thoughts and desires of his soul are in reality the counsels of God made known to him by inspiration, and that if by following these counsels he accomplishes the deliverance of the Church and of mankind, it is the Hand of God which uses him as an instrument. And why should not Pius see a sign of his election to high and extraordinary destinies in the circumstance of his having already sat longer than any of his 256 predecessors, even Piusvi., on the apostolic throne? A history of his Pontificate has already been written in this sense by one of the Jesuits of theCiviltà,and Pius has the chapters read to him one after the other. I am told that a chapter on the Council is already written. The French Court historiographer, Vertot, who had to describe a Belgian campaign including[pg 302]the siege of a fortress, wrote the history of the siege before it was finished, and said quietly,“Mon siège est fait.”And thus the Jesuit historian of the Pope can already say,“Mon Concile est fait.”And in one sense the Council is indeed finished since the 23d inst.—finished by the new order of business.

If the merit of this clever invention is primarily due to the Cardinals on the Commission for revising motions, and the Jesuits who were probably taken into partnership with them, its introduction must be counted among the most eventful acts of Pius, past or future. If it is carried out and adhered to without opposition, it is unquestionably the most conspicuous of all the victories of the Pope. Margotti, the editor of theUnita Cattolica, will hardly be able to find words to do justice to the great day, February 23, 1870, with its boundless wealth of happy results, in the next edition of his work,Le Vittorie della Santa Chiesa sotto Pio IX. ATe Deumwill have to be sung in every Jesuit College of the old and new world.

Great anxiety was felt beforehand about the new order of business. It was said that the Sessions were to be something more than mere votings, that there would still be speeches made, that the written memorials[pg 303]would not be so directly thrown into the waste-paper basket, but would be considered and—if they approved of them—made use of by the Commission. But everything will be settled by the Commission and by a simple majority of votes; the minority may talk, but only so long as the Commission and the majority choose to listen to them.Væ victis!The Council belongs to the Italians and the Spaniards, who are in close alliance with them: from henceforth to wish to reject anySchemaor decree brought before it, is like wanting to stop water from flowing downwards. All the proposals of the minority for a change in the order of business have been left unnoticed. It had already been resolved that a debate could only be cut short by the votes of a majority of two-thirds, but this has been reversed. What will the French and Germans do now? This is naturally the question which trembles on every lip and is written on every countenance. Will they simply acquiesce in thefait accompliwith a good grace, and obediently assume the rôle of the Greek Chorus in the drama of the Council—simply to reflect and moralize, but take no active part in the proceedings? The next few days will show. So much every one perceives; the order of business is the noose which, once fixed on the minority,[pg 304]cannot be got out of, and will only be drawn tighter and tighter till it strangles them at last. It is clear that the majority has the hide of a rhinoceros, from which every arrow shot by the Opposition, however skilfully aimed, glances off harmless. Where are now the wise and foolish virgins?“Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out,”must the Germans, French, and Spanish say henceforth to the Italians, and the answer will be more friendly than in the Gospel:“You need not buy any more oil; come over to our side and be content to use our store.”

It is hardly necessary to observe to your readers that everything which takes place here turns on the question of Infallibility. The new order of business is merely the outer covering for this kernel.“With Infallibility we have all we desire or need,”say the Italians, if that is gained we may“let the nigger go,”and can dispense with his services for the future. But for German theologians, whose hair stands on end at the new order of business and all it involves, I can find no other consolation than what they may derive from the following Persian tale. An English ambassador sent to Persia—I think it was Morier—paid the usual visits at Teheran, and was introduced[pg 305]to the younger son of the Shah. He found him groping about blindfold in the room, and feeling for the furniture in it. The Prince explained this strange business by telling him that it was the rule for the younger sons to be blinded at the death of the Shah, in order to make them incapable of succeeding, and that he wished to prepare and practise himself beforehand for the fate impending over him.“Go ye, and do likewise.”

If the German theologians should still have courage to present an address to their Bishops, the subscription might be,“Morituri vos salutant.”Why have these theologians come to such utter discomfiture?

Here one already hears shouts of triumph; the day of retribution will soon come for those proud Transalpines, when they must bend their necks under the Caudine yoke of the new dogma, or await suspension, degradation, etc.

If German theology had long been decried and hated by theCuriaand the Italian Jesuits, and if theCiviltàgladly took occasion to pour out its wrath on the scholars of“foggy”Germany, you may conceive the extent this fury has reached in Italian clerical papers and curialist circles, since it has become known that[pg 306]the most influential theologians have pronounced against Infallibility, and that not one—with the exception of a couple of pupils of the Jesuits—has said a word to defend it. It is well that one of the most distinguished Italians, a man whose devotion to the Church is unimpeached even in Rome, and whom the Pope has commissioned to write a history of the Council—I mean Cantù—has some years ago confessed and censured this characteristic of his countrymen.“To call laziness superiority, and evade the trouble of examining questions by depreciating them, this is only too much the habit of Italians, and then they mock at the ponderous, long-winded, hair-splitting Germans. But we must endure the reproach of negligence and thoughtlessness from the Germans, while we blindly accept falsified documents.”57

Cantù has hit on the sore place there; for it is precisely their having pointed out the long line of numerous and systematic forgeries, on which the[pg 307]Roman claims of Infallibility are based, and which are used to further other aims of the Italians, that is the main ground of the hatred of the Germans. And now Frenchmen too, like Gratry, come forward and publish these facts over land and sea in their cosmopolitan tongue and clear incisive style.

To return to what preceded the publication of the new order of business; in the last sittings of the Council coming events threw their shadows before. The Bishops of Carcassonne and Belley declared roundly that Infallibility must be proclaimed, and in order, said the latter, to restore the menaced or broken unity of the Church. The impatience and vexation of the authorities are constantly on the increase. Manning said there was only one way of stopping the definition, and that was to cut the throats of half the 500 Bishops of the majority. Of course the Prelates who heard him cried out, like the Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, when Count George of Brandenburg wanted to cut off heads for another doctrine,“No heads off! no heads off!”At the last sitting on theSchema de Catechismo, on the 22d, a scene occurred which presages what is to become the regular practice. The Bishop of Namur had said, in reference to some previous attacks[pg 308]on the Breviary, that no one who spoke against it could be a good Christian. For the information of your readers I must premise a few words here. The Breviary is a collection of prayers and lections for the clergy, introduced by Rome, consisting chiefly of psalms and passages from the Bible and the Lives of the Saints.58TheCuriahas used this, like so many other things, as aninstrumentum dominationis, and a number of fables and forgeries devised in the interest of the Papal system have been interpolated into it. The French Church had long since adopted the precaution of employing a Breviary of her own, much better and purer than the Roman. It was against observations made about this in the Council that the harsh comment of the Bishop of Namur was directed.

Twenty-Sixth Letter.Rome, Feb. 28, 1870.—Our last letter closed with an account of a scene in the Session of February 22, occasioned by some attacks on the Roman Breviary. The Bishop of Namur had maintained that no one who attacked it could be a good Christian.Haynald was one of those who had censured the present condition of the Breviary, and he now replied to Bishop Gravez that in criticising it he had the Fathers of Trent and the Popes themselves for accomplices (complices). A tempest broke out at these words. But Haynald went further and said, with reference to Bishop Langalerie of Belley, that the majority, with their proposals for new dogmas, were the cause of the disunion which had broken out in the Church, and that it would be much better for the heads of the Church to confine themselves to preserving the ancient doctrines in their purity, instead of adding new[pg 310]ones. The Church had succeeded very well with the old doctrines. At this first open attack in Council on the Infallibilist project the storm grew fiercer, and Capalti seized the bell of the President, De Angelis, rung it violently and forbade the speaker to proceed.“Taceas et ab ambone descendas,”he exclaimed. When Haynald went on all the same, a wild cry broke from the majority. The Archbishop of Calocsa at last came down, and so great was the excitement that the sitting was closed and the next postponed to March 2.Meanwhile more attention and care than before has been devoted in Paris to what is going on at Rome. The Emperor and his present ministers understand the gravity of the situation; they know what would be meant by such journals as theMondeand theUniversdaily appealing to infallible Papal decisions, and under their authority calling in question every institution and law of France, and proving beforehand to their readers that there is no obligation in conscience to submit to them, because the Pope has directly or indirectly signified his disapproval. Archbishop Lavigerie of Algiers brought back word to Cardinal Antonelli, on returning to Rome from his mission, that France was in no condition to tolerate the definition of Infallibility,[pg 311]which might lead to a schism, since not only the whole body of State-officers, but the writers, and even the Faubourg St. Germain, were opposed to the new dogma. Antonelli is not apt to be much influenced by such representations, which he views as mere idle threats; he is spoilt by the courtly flatteries of the ever obsequious M. de Banneville, whom he has managed completely to disarm. He has three devices of domestic diplomacy by which he knows how to make excellent use of both Banneville and Trautmansdorff. At one time he says,“It is not we—Pius, theCuriaand I—who want the dogma, but the foreign Bishops, and we should be encroaching on the freedom of the Council by impeding them. And we ought not to subject ourselves to that reproach.”Then, for a variety, he adopts another line.“The Pope,”he says,“has all he wants already, and the dogma of Infallibility would not give him anything more. As it is, and with a Council assembled, all the decrees emanate from him and receive from him their validity, and he can summon or dissolve the Council at his pleasure, so that it only exists by his will and would crumble into dust without him. It is therefore the interest of the Bishops, not ours, that is in question here, and they will know well why[pg 312]the dogma is so valuable to them.”His third formula is,“Every good Christian believes the doctrine already, and therefore little or nothing will be changed in the Church by defining it, and we have not the least desire to use the new decree for calling in question the existing compacts and Concordats. We shall gladly leave alone the concessions we have already granted.”These resources of the Cardinal have hitherto sufficed. But new powers and demands seem to be coming to the front, which his diplomatic counters will no longer satisfy. I have copies of two letters of Count Daru, of January 18 and February 5. These official expressions of opinion from Paris have made theCiviltàJesuits bitterly angry, and their famous article on thePolicastri, in its original form, contained a violent attack on the French statesmen, who were classed with the other ministers and diplomats in such ill repute at Rome. But this roused the alarm of the supreme authority, and so the Jesuits had to eat their own words, and to substitute for their attack a high commendation of Count Daru and the loyalty of France to the Concordat. There is some good in having the articles of theCiviltàregularly revised in the Vatican. I understand that it is intended at Paris to send a special ambassador to Rome to the Council.[pg 313]Meanwhile the Bishops of the minority are consulting how they shall deal with the new order of business. It was announced to the Fathers at the Session of February 22 that, in accordance with these new regulations, they must hand in all their observations on the first ten chapters of theSchema de Ecclesiâin writing within ten days.Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore has not receded from his ludicrous notion that his Infallibilist formula is milder and more tolerable than that of the 400. He has laid it before the thirty-five French Bishops (of the minority), who have unanimously rejected it. Its essence consists, as was mentioned before, in asserting that everybody must receive with unconditional inward assent every Papal decision on every question of faith or morals or Church life. On all theological principles such faith can only be accorded in cases where all possibility of error is excluded, or, in other words, where a revealed truth is concerned; and therefore to accept this formula would be to set aside the limitation of Papal Infallibility, hitherto recognised even in Rome, to decisions pronouncedex cathedrâ. And thus, in the crush and confusion of the innumerable and often contradictory decisions of Popes, theology would degenerate[pg 314]into a lamentable caricature of a system—“science”it could no longer be termed—involved in hopeless contradictions. If the good Spalding had the slightest acquaintance with Church history, he would know that he was bound, in virtue of his inward assent paid to all Papal decrees, first of all to reject his own orders as invalid.59And now I must notice more particularly what Bishop Ketteler has published against me in some German newspapers. He says that in the telegram of February 13, published in theAllg. Zeitungof February 15, he has found the opportunity he had long desired for convicting the writer of theLetters from Romeof building up“a whole system of lying and deceit.”60It is“an indescribable dishonesty,”a“detestable untruth,”etc. His short letter bristles with such accusations. The untruths he complains of are the following:—[pg 315](1.) The telegram called the statement made by Bishop Ketteler and his ally, Bishop Melchers, a“proposal.”He replies that it was only a“communication.”(2.) It treats the occurrence as a“negotiation,”whereas it was only a“short conference.”(3.) There was no debate with“a serious opposition.”The Bishops indeed had expressed different views, and some had disapproved Döllinger's pronouncement, while the others thought only certain individual Bishops might have occasion to come forward against it. (They accordingly understood Ketteler's“communication”just as my informant did, and therefore spoke out against accepting it.)(4.) Ketteler did not hear any Bishop say, as stated in the telegram, that Döllinger really had the majority of (German) Bishops with him.And now let us compare Ketteler's account, deducting the abusive comments subjoined to every sentence, with the—of course extremely compressed—account in the telegram, and we shall find the two in substantial agreement. The Bishop is obliged to interpolate something into the telegram, in order to find fuel for the fire of holy indignation his delirious fancy has betrayed him[pg 316]into. He quarrels with me fiercely for saying there was a debate and a negotiation, whereas there was only a conference; but I never made use of those words. He says he made no motion, but he himself recounts statements of the Bishops which show clearly that they understood his“communication”as an invitation to do as he did. Only one somewhat important point of difference remains, viz., whether the Bishops named in the telegram said what they are there reported to have said or not. Bishop Ketteler can only say that he did not hear them say it. But considering that in an informal meeting of forty or forty-five persons, broken up into groups, a great deal is said which every one in the room does not hear, and that I received my information the same day from one who was present, I still adhere to my assertion that they did say it. For the rest, I am much indebted to Bishop Ketteler; he assures us that he has long desired an opportunity for saying all the evil he can of me and my Letters. He has now made a grand onset. If he had found anything in the eighteen long Letters before him better suited to his purpose, he would certainly not have taken refuge in such petty trivialities and, like a boy with snowballs, have flung what has turned into water in his hand. He has[pg 317]thus unwillingly given testimony to the truthfulness of my Letters. And for this I pardon him his exaggerated rhetoric, but will not suppress the remark made by an Englishman who knows mankind well:“There are certain women, says Fielding, always ready to raise a cry of‘Murder, fire, rape’and the like, but that means no more in their mouths than any one else means in going over the scale, Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol,”etc.

Rome, Feb. 28, 1870.—Our last letter closed with an account of a scene in the Session of February 22, occasioned by some attacks on the Roman Breviary. The Bishop of Namur had maintained that no one who attacked it could be a good Christian.

Haynald was one of those who had censured the present condition of the Breviary, and he now replied to Bishop Gravez that in criticising it he had the Fathers of Trent and the Popes themselves for accomplices (complices). A tempest broke out at these words. But Haynald went further and said, with reference to Bishop Langalerie of Belley, that the majority, with their proposals for new dogmas, were the cause of the disunion which had broken out in the Church, and that it would be much better for the heads of the Church to confine themselves to preserving the ancient doctrines in their purity, instead of adding new[pg 310]ones. The Church had succeeded very well with the old doctrines. At this first open attack in Council on the Infallibilist project the storm grew fiercer, and Capalti seized the bell of the President, De Angelis, rung it violently and forbade the speaker to proceed.“Taceas et ab ambone descendas,”he exclaimed. When Haynald went on all the same, a wild cry broke from the majority. The Archbishop of Calocsa at last came down, and so great was the excitement that the sitting was closed and the next postponed to March 2.

Meanwhile more attention and care than before has been devoted in Paris to what is going on at Rome. The Emperor and his present ministers understand the gravity of the situation; they know what would be meant by such journals as theMondeand theUniversdaily appealing to infallible Papal decisions, and under their authority calling in question every institution and law of France, and proving beforehand to their readers that there is no obligation in conscience to submit to them, because the Pope has directly or indirectly signified his disapproval. Archbishop Lavigerie of Algiers brought back word to Cardinal Antonelli, on returning to Rome from his mission, that France was in no condition to tolerate the definition of Infallibility,[pg 311]which might lead to a schism, since not only the whole body of State-officers, but the writers, and even the Faubourg St. Germain, were opposed to the new dogma. Antonelli is not apt to be much influenced by such representations, which he views as mere idle threats; he is spoilt by the courtly flatteries of the ever obsequious M. de Banneville, whom he has managed completely to disarm. He has three devices of domestic diplomacy by which he knows how to make excellent use of both Banneville and Trautmansdorff. At one time he says,“It is not we—Pius, theCuriaand I—who want the dogma, but the foreign Bishops, and we should be encroaching on the freedom of the Council by impeding them. And we ought not to subject ourselves to that reproach.”Then, for a variety, he adopts another line.“The Pope,”he says,“has all he wants already, and the dogma of Infallibility would not give him anything more. As it is, and with a Council assembled, all the decrees emanate from him and receive from him their validity, and he can summon or dissolve the Council at his pleasure, so that it only exists by his will and would crumble into dust without him. It is therefore the interest of the Bishops, not ours, that is in question here, and they will know well why[pg 312]the dogma is so valuable to them.”His third formula is,“Every good Christian believes the doctrine already, and therefore little or nothing will be changed in the Church by defining it, and we have not the least desire to use the new decree for calling in question the existing compacts and Concordats. We shall gladly leave alone the concessions we have already granted.”These resources of the Cardinal have hitherto sufficed. But new powers and demands seem to be coming to the front, which his diplomatic counters will no longer satisfy. I have copies of two letters of Count Daru, of January 18 and February 5. These official expressions of opinion from Paris have made theCiviltàJesuits bitterly angry, and their famous article on thePolicastri, in its original form, contained a violent attack on the French statesmen, who were classed with the other ministers and diplomats in such ill repute at Rome. But this roused the alarm of the supreme authority, and so the Jesuits had to eat their own words, and to substitute for their attack a high commendation of Count Daru and the loyalty of France to the Concordat. There is some good in having the articles of theCiviltàregularly revised in the Vatican. I understand that it is intended at Paris to send a special ambassador to Rome to the Council.

Meanwhile the Bishops of the minority are consulting how they shall deal with the new order of business. It was announced to the Fathers at the Session of February 22 that, in accordance with these new regulations, they must hand in all their observations on the first ten chapters of theSchema de Ecclesiâin writing within ten days.

Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore has not receded from his ludicrous notion that his Infallibilist formula is milder and more tolerable than that of the 400. He has laid it before the thirty-five French Bishops (of the minority), who have unanimously rejected it. Its essence consists, as was mentioned before, in asserting that everybody must receive with unconditional inward assent every Papal decision on every question of faith or morals or Church life. On all theological principles such faith can only be accorded in cases where all possibility of error is excluded, or, in other words, where a revealed truth is concerned; and therefore to accept this formula would be to set aside the limitation of Papal Infallibility, hitherto recognised even in Rome, to decisions pronouncedex cathedrâ. And thus, in the crush and confusion of the innumerable and often contradictory decisions of Popes, theology would degenerate[pg 314]into a lamentable caricature of a system—“science”it could no longer be termed—involved in hopeless contradictions. If the good Spalding had the slightest acquaintance with Church history, he would know that he was bound, in virtue of his inward assent paid to all Papal decrees, first of all to reject his own orders as invalid.59

And now I must notice more particularly what Bishop Ketteler has published against me in some German newspapers. He says that in the telegram of February 13, published in theAllg. Zeitungof February 15, he has found the opportunity he had long desired for convicting the writer of theLetters from Romeof building up“a whole system of lying and deceit.”60It is“an indescribable dishonesty,”a“detestable untruth,”etc. His short letter bristles with such accusations. The untruths he complains of are the following:—

(1.) The telegram called the statement made by Bishop Ketteler and his ally, Bishop Melchers, a“proposal.”He replies that it was only a“communication.”

(2.) It treats the occurrence as a“negotiation,”whereas it was only a“short conference.”

(3.) There was no debate with“a serious opposition.”The Bishops indeed had expressed different views, and some had disapproved Döllinger's pronouncement, while the others thought only certain individual Bishops might have occasion to come forward against it. (They accordingly understood Ketteler's“communication”just as my informant did, and therefore spoke out against accepting it.)

(4.) Ketteler did not hear any Bishop say, as stated in the telegram, that Döllinger really had the majority of (German) Bishops with him.

And now let us compare Ketteler's account, deducting the abusive comments subjoined to every sentence, with the—of course extremely compressed—account in the telegram, and we shall find the two in substantial agreement. The Bishop is obliged to interpolate something into the telegram, in order to find fuel for the fire of holy indignation his delirious fancy has betrayed him[pg 316]into. He quarrels with me fiercely for saying there was a debate and a negotiation, whereas there was only a conference; but I never made use of those words. He says he made no motion, but he himself recounts statements of the Bishops which show clearly that they understood his“communication”as an invitation to do as he did. Only one somewhat important point of difference remains, viz., whether the Bishops named in the telegram said what they are there reported to have said or not. Bishop Ketteler can only say that he did not hear them say it. But considering that in an informal meeting of forty or forty-five persons, broken up into groups, a great deal is said which every one in the room does not hear, and that I received my information the same day from one who was present, I still adhere to my assertion that they did say it. For the rest, I am much indebted to Bishop Ketteler; he assures us that he has long desired an opportunity for saying all the evil he can of me and my Letters. He has now made a grand onset. If he had found anything in the eighteen long Letters before him better suited to his purpose, he would certainly not have taken refuge in such petty trivialities and, like a boy with snowballs, have flung what has turned into water in his hand. He has[pg 317]thus unwillingly given testimony to the truthfulness of my Letters. And for this I pardon him his exaggerated rhetoric, but will not suppress the remark made by an Englishman who knows mankind well:“There are certain women, says Fielding, always ready to raise a cry of‘Murder, fire, rape’and the like, but that means no more in their mouths than any one else means in going over the scale, Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol,”etc.

Twenty-Seventh Letter.Rome, March 8, 1870.—“Habemus Papam falli nescium!”The Bishops of the Manning and Deschamps party are in raptures; all Rome, say the Infallibilist devotees, is in the highest spirits. The great doctrine, on which, as all the Jesuits and their disciples assure us, hinges the salvation of humanity and the regeneration of science and literature, was published on March 6 in the form of a supplement to theSchema de Ecclesiâ. The Pope bears witness of himself that he is infallible as teacher of the Church, and the great majority of the Council will readily assent. Already they are exulting in that moment of triumph when the Pope from his throne in the Hall,“sacro Concilio approbante,”and amid the pealing of all the bells in Rome, will proclaim to the world that it is now fortunate enough to possess an infallible teacher and judge in all questions of faith and morals, guaranteed by God Himself. Day and hour for[pg 319]the proclamation will be chosen with the greatest deliberation and foresight, and here another ground for clinging so pertinaciously to the present Council Hall comes out. It was thought quite incomprehensible why“the master”insulted 750 aged men by compelling them, in spite of all wishes and representations and the evidence of his own senses, to hold their sittings in a Chamber so utterly unfit for the purpose. In a city so abounding in churches and halls as Rome this seemed an act rather of ill-tempered caprice than of hospitable care. It was known of course that the previous expectations of the Vatican had been disappointed, that it had been hoped theSchematawould be received by acclamation or by storm, as it were, without discussion, and that the Hall had been chosen on the very ground of its acoustic defects being adapted to that end. Now however a new recommendation of the Hall betrays itself. At a certain hour on a clear and cloudless day the rays of the sun fall exactly on the place where the Pope's throne stands, so that Pius may hope, by help of careful arrangements about the time, to stand in a glory of sunlight at the moment when he announces to the world the divine revelation of his own infallibility. It is on this wise, as we said before, that he has had himself represented[pg 320]in the memorial picture of the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. At the Coronation of Charlesx.of France doves were let fly into the church. And so in Rome also a dove might be trained, so as to make it hover above the Pope at the moment of his apotheosis being proclaimed by his own mouth, which would make the effect quite irresistible.In this state of things the eyes of all men are turned on the Bishops united, or rather not united but only assembled, in Council. The great majority are much in the disposition of the Athenians, when Alexander sent word to them that he had become a god, and wished to be worshipped as such. The popular assembly cried out that, if Alexander really wished to be a god, he was one. So say 300 Bishops:“We eat the Pope's bread and drink his wine and rest under his roof, so—let him be infallible.”And 100 Bishops say:“We are nothing but titular Bishops, with no dioceses or flocks; from whom but the Pope do we get our titles? So—let him be infallible.”Others again say:“We call ourselves Bishops or Vicars-Apostolic by favour of the Pope, and during his good pleasure. Let him then be infallible.”Lastly others say:“TheCuriahas us in its power, and we need it at every step;[pg 321]the Pope must be infallible, since he desires it.”Thus we have 550 born infallibilists. And to them must be added those whom the Italians—e.g., Mamiani—call more curtly than courteously“gli Energumeni stranieri,”prelates of the Manning typeet id genus omne, who really take part as volunteers in this campaign for the triumph of papal infallibility and the domination of souls. Many, like Sieyès formerly, will vote“la mort et sans phrase,”but we shall read of unctuous motives alleged by the volunteers for their votes. They want infallibility for themselves as well as others; for themselves, because then there will be no further need“to dig,”for which they have“neither hand nor foot,”but all doctrines will be received ready made, measured and cut out by the Jesuits and stamped and guaranteed as genuine in the Roman printing-office; for others, because thereby every doubt or suspicion or inconvenient demand in matters of doctrine will be summarily got rid of and suppressed.It is three months to-day since the Council was opened. Viewed from without, the circumstances could hardly have been more favourable; in national diversities and universality of representation the assembly surpassed all former Councils, nor was it so obvious at the[pg 322]beginning that under this bright outside was concealed a crying and iniquitous inequality of representation, and that here again the mastery was placed in the hands of the Italians. But how have all hopes been deceived now, and who had thought of this lamentable upshot!Lamartine desired of his age that Italy should produce“des hommes et non de la poussière humaine.”For three months have these 750 prelates been assembled—in theory the very flower of the Catholic world, the pastors of 180 million souls, men with a rich experience at their back. They were at once separated into two parties, one of 600 and the other of about 150. On which side are the men and on which the human dust? What have these 600 done in the three months they have been together, what have they brought to an issue, and what thoughts or sparks of intelligence have been struck out of this daily contact with so many high dignitaries from the four quarters of the world? Their utter sterility, aimlessness and poverty of thought—their passively resigning themselves to a mere assent to the thoughts and words of others—all this, when watched close at hand, makes a painful impression. It is true that European history since 1789 has accustomed us to the infirmities and follies and the unproductiveness[pg 323]of great deliberative assemblies; it has become an every-day phenomenon, and in our days one's expectations from an ecclesiastical assembly can only be of the most moderate kind. There is no fear there of rash and hasty decisions or revolutionary measures. But La Bruyere's saying,“A great assembly always becomes a rabble,”is verified even at Rome, and the Italians of 1870 have already begun to emulate the example of their ancestors in 1562. Just as the majority at Trent knew how to reduce a disagreeable speaker to silence by wild cries and coughing and scraping with their feet, so is it now at the Vatican Council. It is the humiliating feeling of intellectual impotence and of deficiency alike in knowledge, eloquence and mind, as compared with the minority, from whom almost everything emanates that can be called life or thought in the Council. They feel their abject littleness, in their thankless rôle of being a mere echo of theSchemataand Canons proposed, and having to present in so unadorned and undisguised a form that“sacrificio dell' intelletto”which the Jesuits so eagerly commend. The honour of being afterwards lauded, as one of the 600 organs of the Holy Ghost at this Council, has to be purchased rather dear. But we cannot in fact come to close quarters and converse with[pg 324]these Bishops of the majority, without being reminded of the reply of a Dane to a Frenchman, who said to him (before the Revolution) that the highest Order in France was that of the Holy Ghost.“Notre Saint Esprit est un éléphant,”answered the Dane. But the situation is almost too serious for such thoughts.A synopsis of the outstanding measures has been presented to the Council. There are altogether 51Schemata: 3 on“Faith,”28 on“Discipline,”18 on“Religious Orders,”2 on“Oriental Church affairs:”of these 39 have not yet been distributed, and 46 not discussed; 12 are in the hands of the Bishops, of which 5 have been already discussed and are to be again presented and examined, after being modified by the Commission. This is obviously matter enough for two years' work; yet the Council Hall and the hitherto irresistible and invulnerable majority will conspire to push the 51Schemataexpeditiously through the Council, unabbreviated and hardly altered. If only the master at last praises and rewards his servants!Meanwhile 34 French Bishops have signed a Statement of Protest against the new order of business. I hear that the perversity of deciding doctrines by counting heads is emphatically dwelt on. The same document[pg 325]has been subscribed by 33 German Bishops, with certain additions. Cardinals Mathieu and Rauscher, while professing their agreement, did not think it well to sign. Some 10 or 12 Germans have accepted a shorter but more precise and pointed address, maintaining the same principles. Some Orientals too have signed, while the deliberations of the Americans, on the other hand, came to no result.Such declarations are necessary for the outer world and for the satisfaction of their own consciences, but they can hardly be expected to produce any effect, nor do the signataries themselves anticipate any important change being made in the newregolamento. Would that their representations were formal protests, declaring that they would take no further part in an assembly lacking the necessary conditions of a true Council! But neither the French nor Germans could resolve on that. It would be hard even for a man like Dupanloup, who may be reckoned a leader of the Opposition, openly to contradict his own earlier writings about the Pope. The question suggests itself, If Pius, before his infallibility is made a dogma, has said,“I am the way, the truth, and the life,”what will he say when his apotheosis is accomplished? What words of human language[pg 326]will suffice adequately to denote the sublimity of his position? A former saying of a member of the Italian aristocracy, well known for his witty remarks, occurs to me,“Gli altri Papi credevano esser Vicarii di Christo, ma questo Papa crede che nostro Signore sia il suo Vicario in cielo.”We live here in the place whereof Tacitus wrote eighteen centuries ago,“Cupido dominandi cunctis affectibus flagrantior est.”61If infallibility is defined, every member of the Roman Congregations has the pleasing certainty that he possesses“divinæ particulam auræ.”Pius is as firm and resolved as ever; the Jesuits have told him that, if the new dogma produces any confusion and scandal in the Church, it matters nothing—other dogmatic decisions have led to great confusion, but have remained triumphant; in a hundred years all will be quiet. Father Piccirillo, the editor of theCiviltàand special favourite of Pius, has consoled other prelates in the same way.TheSchema de Ecclesiâhas been compared with the lecture notes of a Jesuit Professor at the Collegio Romano, and the two are shown to agree precisely.[pg 327]Even the most abjectPlacet-men of the majority feel rather ashamed of this; they had not quite expected to be summoned to Rome, simply in order to formulate the lecture notes of a Jesuit into dogmatic decrees for the whole Church.An individual so insignificant intellectually, that I never expected to have any occasion for mentioning his name, and who is regarded in German circles as the standing joke of the Council, a certain Wolanski, has just been placed on the Congregation of the Index, as censor for German books. He would be utterly incompetent even to transcribe the work of a German theologian for the press. But in Rome they like, from time to time, to give a kick of this sort to foreigners.Postscript.—I have just been put in a position to tell you something of the contents of the episcopal protest against the new order of business. In respect to the thirteenth article it is objected, that in former Councils a method of voting simply designed to secure expedition (“eo expedito modo”) has never been adopted—a form“quo nullus certe alius gravitati et maturitati deliberationis, imo et ipsi libertati minus favet.”It is added, that even in political assemblies the right is[pg 328]granted of demanding that votes should be taken by calling names. It is not rapidity of decision, but prudence and the utmost possible security, that is the important point.“Quod in Concilio maxime refert, non est ut cito res expediatur, sed ut caute et tutissime peragatur. Longe satius est paucas quæstiones expendere et prudenter solvere, quam multo numerosiores proponere et decurtatis discussionibus suffragiisque præcipitanter collectis res tam graves irrevocabiliter definire.”The document goes on to protest against the regulation for first counting the votes of those who assent to the proposed decrees, and not till after this has been done of those who reject them. This is quite wrong;“Cum in quæstionibus fidei tutius sit sistere et definitionem differre, quam temere progredi, ideo conditio dissentientium favorabilior esse debet, et ipsis prioritas in dandis suffragiis excedenda esset.”The memorialists further desire that, in the definition of a dogma or the establishment of a canon armed with anathema, the votes should be orally given byPlacetandNon placet, not by rising and sitting down. And then great stress is laid on the point of dogmas not being decided by a mere majority but only by moral unanimity, so that any decree opposed by a considerable number of[pg 329]Bishops may be held to be rejected. The Bishops say,“Cum dogmata constent Ecclesiarum consensu, ut ait Bellarminus,”moral unanimity is necessary. There is a further demand or request of the Bishops,“ut suffragia patrum non supertoto Schemateet quasiin globo, sed seorsim super unâquâque definitione, super unoquoque Canone, perPlacetautNon placetsigillatim rogentur et edantur.”The Fathers should also be free, according to the Pope's previous arrangement, to give in their remarks in writing. But the following is the most important passage:—“Id autem quod spectat ad numerum suffragiorum requisitum ut quæstiones dogmaticæ solvantur, in quo quidem rei summa est et totius Concilii cardo vertitur, ita grave est, ut nonnisi admitteretur, quod reverenter et enixe postulamus, conscientia nostra intolerabili pondere premeretur. Timeremus, ne Concilii Œcumenici character in dubium vocari posset, ne ansa hostibus præberetur, S. Sedem et Concilium impetendi, sicque demum apud populum Christianum hujus Concilii auctoritas labefactaretur,‘quasi veritate et libertate caruerit,’quod his turbatissimis temporibus tanta esset calamitas ut pejor excogitari non possit.”On this we might however observe with all respect, that a greater calamity is quite conceivable,[pg 330]and that is the sanctioning of a doctrine exegetically, dogmatically and historically untenable by an assembly calling itself a Council. The Protest ends with these words:—“Spe freti futurum ut hæ nostræ gravissimæ animadversiones ab Eminentiis vestris benevolenti animo accipiantur, earumque, quae par est, ratio habeatur, nosmet profitemur: Eminentiarum Vestrarum addictissimos et obsequentissimos famulos.”

Rome, March 8, 1870.—“Habemus Papam falli nescium!”The Bishops of the Manning and Deschamps party are in raptures; all Rome, say the Infallibilist devotees, is in the highest spirits. The great doctrine, on which, as all the Jesuits and their disciples assure us, hinges the salvation of humanity and the regeneration of science and literature, was published on March 6 in the form of a supplement to theSchema de Ecclesiâ. The Pope bears witness of himself that he is infallible as teacher of the Church, and the great majority of the Council will readily assent. Already they are exulting in that moment of triumph when the Pope from his throne in the Hall,“sacro Concilio approbante,”and amid the pealing of all the bells in Rome, will proclaim to the world that it is now fortunate enough to possess an infallible teacher and judge in all questions of faith and morals, guaranteed by God Himself. Day and hour for[pg 319]the proclamation will be chosen with the greatest deliberation and foresight, and here another ground for clinging so pertinaciously to the present Council Hall comes out. It was thought quite incomprehensible why“the master”insulted 750 aged men by compelling them, in spite of all wishes and representations and the evidence of his own senses, to hold their sittings in a Chamber so utterly unfit for the purpose. In a city so abounding in churches and halls as Rome this seemed an act rather of ill-tempered caprice than of hospitable care. It was known of course that the previous expectations of the Vatican had been disappointed, that it had been hoped theSchematawould be received by acclamation or by storm, as it were, without discussion, and that the Hall had been chosen on the very ground of its acoustic defects being adapted to that end. Now however a new recommendation of the Hall betrays itself. At a certain hour on a clear and cloudless day the rays of the sun fall exactly on the place where the Pope's throne stands, so that Pius may hope, by help of careful arrangements about the time, to stand in a glory of sunlight at the moment when he announces to the world the divine revelation of his own infallibility. It is on this wise, as we said before, that he has had himself represented[pg 320]in the memorial picture of the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. At the Coronation of Charlesx.of France doves were let fly into the church. And so in Rome also a dove might be trained, so as to make it hover above the Pope at the moment of his apotheosis being proclaimed by his own mouth, which would make the effect quite irresistible.

In this state of things the eyes of all men are turned on the Bishops united, or rather not united but only assembled, in Council. The great majority are much in the disposition of the Athenians, when Alexander sent word to them that he had become a god, and wished to be worshipped as such. The popular assembly cried out that, if Alexander really wished to be a god, he was one. So say 300 Bishops:“We eat the Pope's bread and drink his wine and rest under his roof, so—let him be infallible.”And 100 Bishops say:“We are nothing but titular Bishops, with no dioceses or flocks; from whom but the Pope do we get our titles? So—let him be infallible.”Others again say:“We call ourselves Bishops or Vicars-Apostolic by favour of the Pope, and during his good pleasure. Let him then be infallible.”Lastly others say:“TheCuriahas us in its power, and we need it at every step;[pg 321]the Pope must be infallible, since he desires it.”Thus we have 550 born infallibilists. And to them must be added those whom the Italians—e.g., Mamiani—call more curtly than courteously“gli Energumeni stranieri,”prelates of the Manning typeet id genus omne, who really take part as volunteers in this campaign for the triumph of papal infallibility and the domination of souls. Many, like Sieyès formerly, will vote“la mort et sans phrase,”but we shall read of unctuous motives alleged by the volunteers for their votes. They want infallibility for themselves as well as others; for themselves, because then there will be no further need“to dig,”for which they have“neither hand nor foot,”but all doctrines will be received ready made, measured and cut out by the Jesuits and stamped and guaranteed as genuine in the Roman printing-office; for others, because thereby every doubt or suspicion or inconvenient demand in matters of doctrine will be summarily got rid of and suppressed.

It is three months to-day since the Council was opened. Viewed from without, the circumstances could hardly have been more favourable; in national diversities and universality of representation the assembly surpassed all former Councils, nor was it so obvious at the[pg 322]beginning that under this bright outside was concealed a crying and iniquitous inequality of representation, and that here again the mastery was placed in the hands of the Italians. But how have all hopes been deceived now, and who had thought of this lamentable upshot!

Lamartine desired of his age that Italy should produce“des hommes et non de la poussière humaine.”For three months have these 750 prelates been assembled—in theory the very flower of the Catholic world, the pastors of 180 million souls, men with a rich experience at their back. They were at once separated into two parties, one of 600 and the other of about 150. On which side are the men and on which the human dust? What have these 600 done in the three months they have been together, what have they brought to an issue, and what thoughts or sparks of intelligence have been struck out of this daily contact with so many high dignitaries from the four quarters of the world? Their utter sterility, aimlessness and poverty of thought—their passively resigning themselves to a mere assent to the thoughts and words of others—all this, when watched close at hand, makes a painful impression. It is true that European history since 1789 has accustomed us to the infirmities and follies and the unproductiveness[pg 323]of great deliberative assemblies; it has become an every-day phenomenon, and in our days one's expectations from an ecclesiastical assembly can only be of the most moderate kind. There is no fear there of rash and hasty decisions or revolutionary measures. But La Bruyere's saying,“A great assembly always becomes a rabble,”is verified even at Rome, and the Italians of 1870 have already begun to emulate the example of their ancestors in 1562. Just as the majority at Trent knew how to reduce a disagreeable speaker to silence by wild cries and coughing and scraping with their feet, so is it now at the Vatican Council. It is the humiliating feeling of intellectual impotence and of deficiency alike in knowledge, eloquence and mind, as compared with the minority, from whom almost everything emanates that can be called life or thought in the Council. They feel their abject littleness, in their thankless rôle of being a mere echo of theSchemataand Canons proposed, and having to present in so unadorned and undisguised a form that“sacrificio dell' intelletto”which the Jesuits so eagerly commend. The honour of being afterwards lauded, as one of the 600 organs of the Holy Ghost at this Council, has to be purchased rather dear. But we cannot in fact come to close quarters and converse with[pg 324]these Bishops of the majority, without being reminded of the reply of a Dane to a Frenchman, who said to him (before the Revolution) that the highest Order in France was that of the Holy Ghost.“Notre Saint Esprit est un éléphant,”answered the Dane. But the situation is almost too serious for such thoughts.

A synopsis of the outstanding measures has been presented to the Council. There are altogether 51Schemata: 3 on“Faith,”28 on“Discipline,”18 on“Religious Orders,”2 on“Oriental Church affairs:”of these 39 have not yet been distributed, and 46 not discussed; 12 are in the hands of the Bishops, of which 5 have been already discussed and are to be again presented and examined, after being modified by the Commission. This is obviously matter enough for two years' work; yet the Council Hall and the hitherto irresistible and invulnerable majority will conspire to push the 51Schemataexpeditiously through the Council, unabbreviated and hardly altered. If only the master at last praises and rewards his servants!

Meanwhile 34 French Bishops have signed a Statement of Protest against the new order of business. I hear that the perversity of deciding doctrines by counting heads is emphatically dwelt on. The same document[pg 325]has been subscribed by 33 German Bishops, with certain additions. Cardinals Mathieu and Rauscher, while professing their agreement, did not think it well to sign. Some 10 or 12 Germans have accepted a shorter but more precise and pointed address, maintaining the same principles. Some Orientals too have signed, while the deliberations of the Americans, on the other hand, came to no result.

Such declarations are necessary for the outer world and for the satisfaction of their own consciences, but they can hardly be expected to produce any effect, nor do the signataries themselves anticipate any important change being made in the newregolamento. Would that their representations were formal protests, declaring that they would take no further part in an assembly lacking the necessary conditions of a true Council! But neither the French nor Germans could resolve on that. It would be hard even for a man like Dupanloup, who may be reckoned a leader of the Opposition, openly to contradict his own earlier writings about the Pope. The question suggests itself, If Pius, before his infallibility is made a dogma, has said,“I am the way, the truth, and the life,”what will he say when his apotheosis is accomplished? What words of human language[pg 326]will suffice adequately to denote the sublimity of his position? A former saying of a member of the Italian aristocracy, well known for his witty remarks, occurs to me,“Gli altri Papi credevano esser Vicarii di Christo, ma questo Papa crede che nostro Signore sia il suo Vicario in cielo.”

We live here in the place whereof Tacitus wrote eighteen centuries ago,“Cupido dominandi cunctis affectibus flagrantior est.”61

If infallibility is defined, every member of the Roman Congregations has the pleasing certainty that he possesses“divinæ particulam auræ.”Pius is as firm and resolved as ever; the Jesuits have told him that, if the new dogma produces any confusion and scandal in the Church, it matters nothing—other dogmatic decisions have led to great confusion, but have remained triumphant; in a hundred years all will be quiet. Father Piccirillo, the editor of theCiviltàand special favourite of Pius, has consoled other prelates in the same way.

TheSchema de Ecclesiâhas been compared with the lecture notes of a Jesuit Professor at the Collegio Romano, and the two are shown to agree precisely.[pg 327]Even the most abjectPlacet-men of the majority feel rather ashamed of this; they had not quite expected to be summoned to Rome, simply in order to formulate the lecture notes of a Jesuit into dogmatic decrees for the whole Church.

An individual so insignificant intellectually, that I never expected to have any occasion for mentioning his name, and who is regarded in German circles as the standing joke of the Council, a certain Wolanski, has just been placed on the Congregation of the Index, as censor for German books. He would be utterly incompetent even to transcribe the work of a German theologian for the press. But in Rome they like, from time to time, to give a kick of this sort to foreigners.

Postscript.—I have just been put in a position to tell you something of the contents of the episcopal protest against the new order of business. In respect to the thirteenth article it is objected, that in former Councils a method of voting simply designed to secure expedition (“eo expedito modo”) has never been adopted—a form“quo nullus certe alius gravitati et maturitati deliberationis, imo et ipsi libertati minus favet.”It is added, that even in political assemblies the right is[pg 328]granted of demanding that votes should be taken by calling names. It is not rapidity of decision, but prudence and the utmost possible security, that is the important point.“Quod in Concilio maxime refert, non est ut cito res expediatur, sed ut caute et tutissime peragatur. Longe satius est paucas quæstiones expendere et prudenter solvere, quam multo numerosiores proponere et decurtatis discussionibus suffragiisque præcipitanter collectis res tam graves irrevocabiliter definire.”The document goes on to protest against the regulation for first counting the votes of those who assent to the proposed decrees, and not till after this has been done of those who reject them. This is quite wrong;“Cum in quæstionibus fidei tutius sit sistere et definitionem differre, quam temere progredi, ideo conditio dissentientium favorabilior esse debet, et ipsis prioritas in dandis suffragiis excedenda esset.”The memorialists further desire that, in the definition of a dogma or the establishment of a canon armed with anathema, the votes should be orally given byPlacetandNon placet, not by rising and sitting down. And then great stress is laid on the point of dogmas not being decided by a mere majority but only by moral unanimity, so that any decree opposed by a considerable number of[pg 329]Bishops may be held to be rejected. The Bishops say,“Cum dogmata constent Ecclesiarum consensu, ut ait Bellarminus,”moral unanimity is necessary. There is a further demand or request of the Bishops,“ut suffragia patrum non supertoto Schemateet quasiin globo, sed seorsim super unâquâque definitione, super unoquoque Canone, perPlacetautNon placetsigillatim rogentur et edantur.”The Fathers should also be free, according to the Pope's previous arrangement, to give in their remarks in writing. But the following is the most important passage:—“Id autem quod spectat ad numerum suffragiorum requisitum ut quæstiones dogmaticæ solvantur, in quo quidem rei summa est et totius Concilii cardo vertitur, ita grave est, ut nonnisi admitteretur, quod reverenter et enixe postulamus, conscientia nostra intolerabili pondere premeretur. Timeremus, ne Concilii Œcumenici character in dubium vocari posset, ne ansa hostibus præberetur, S. Sedem et Concilium impetendi, sicque demum apud populum Christianum hujus Concilii auctoritas labefactaretur,‘quasi veritate et libertate caruerit,’quod his turbatissimis temporibus tanta esset calamitas ut pejor excogitari non possit.”On this we might however observe with all respect, that a greater calamity is quite conceivable,[pg 330]and that is the sanctioning of a doctrine exegetically, dogmatically and historically untenable by an assembly calling itself a Council. The Protest ends with these words:—“Spe freti futurum ut hæ nostræ gravissimæ animadversiones ab Eminentiis vestris benevolenti animo accipiantur, earumque, quae par est, ratio habeatur, nosmet profitemur: Eminentiarum Vestrarum addictissimos et obsequentissimos famulos.”

Back to IndexNext