the practice into a principle of jurisprudence. If a stranger to theology and church history were to light by accident on the passage in the history of the Council of Trent, which is here alluded to, doubtless he might easily fall into the mistake of supposing that Pius was referring obiter to a rule of law, instead of giving special directions for the particular conduct of a delicate and personal question. But if, getting interested in the story, he were to turn to the relation of what was said and done on another matter, no less delicate and no less hotly contested, he would perceive that he had mistaken the purport of the Pope's language. Let any one compare the passage of Pallavicino in which the historian summarizes, from the letters of the Cardinal-Secretary Borromeo,* the Pope's instructions to his Legates not to press for a definition of his relations to the Episcopate against the French opposition, with the words in which the Legates call upon the Fathers to vote on the question of residence. It is plain, if words have any meaning, that the unanimity required by Pius IV. was merely a regulation made to meet the exigencies of a special case, and was, in fact, a derogation from the ordinary law. The circumstances under which the Pope sent instructions to Trent that "those definitions only were to be made in which the Fathers should be of one mind, were briefly these. The French bishops were so determined in their opposition to the form of certain canons sent from Rome on the subject of Papal and Episcopal authority, and especially to the phrase in which the Pope was styled "ruler of the Universal Church," that an open rupture, ending in the dissolution of the Council, and perhaps a schism, was feared. In order to avoid so great a calamity, His Holiness agreed to accept the French amendments, with the exception of those which were opposed to the Papal rights as determined at Florence. He further suggested various verbal modifications of the canons in the French sense, and finally wound up his instructions on the point by saying that he would be content to have nothing expressed about his own power or that of Bishops, but only such decrees made as would gain the suffrages of all the Fathers. For the rest, provided the authority of the Apostolic See remained intact, the Legates were to do whatever they judged best for the service of God and the Church. And if they found that feeling still ran high, let them prorogue the session, and await the changes certain to be wrought by time.

"

The obvious interpretation of all this is, that for various reasons of expediency Pope Pius preferred to await the calming influence of time rather than push the particular question of his own prerogatives to a sudden issue. The obvious interpretation becomes necessary, when these instructions are compared with the Legates' categorical assertion that "this holy Council has been always used to draw up its decrees according to the majority of voices." And it

*The illustrious S. Charles.

must be borne in mind that this declaration was made in the very act of putting to the vote a dogmatic question. There can be no doubt that the Legates expressed the rule, the Pope the exception. It will be worth while to write down in parallel columns the two passages from Pallavicino, in order that our readers may see, as well as understand, the force of the comparison.*

*We shall place in the first column a translation of the summary of the letters; in the second the formula used by the Legates :

Pallavicino, Storia del Concilio di Trento, lib. xix. cap. 15; lib. xiv. cap. 4. Ed. Roma, 1846.

We have not seen any other arguments adduced which seem to us to call for special notice. When it is said that the faith is a deposit in the custody of all the Churches, and that therefore the unanimous testimony of all the Churches is the sole test of the infallibility of an ecclesiastical judgment, the real theological reason for requiring unanimity in Councils is expressed; but the discussion is carried beyond its terms, and comes back (as we have already said) to the general question, whether the tradition of any particular church is indefectible, and its testimony therefore infallible: in other words to the real point at issue, viz., whether the Roman Pontiff is, or is not, infallible.

In the "Schema pro Infallibilitate Romani Pontificis," submitted to the Council by the North American Bishops, there was a passage which seemed to favour the unanimity theory. That sense, however, was promptly disavowed by the author of the Schema. The course of events even led him to change his original opinion, that the effervescence of men's minds on the Infallibility question made unanimity on that point morally necessary to the opportuneness of the definition.* As we are going to press, the appearance of a new pamphlet, asserting the necessity of unanimity, betokens that the changes are to be rung on this question, as they have been rung on Honorius and the False Decretals.† But, as we write, the Spirit of God, at the prayer of the faithful people, is moving over the troubled waters of human disputation, and before the ink is yet well dried, will have evoked light upon the face of the deep, shown the truth in its harmonious beauty, and "divided the light from the darkness.”

*The following is the passage to which reference is made in the text. It occurs in the "Rationes ob quas schema. . . . magis expedire creditur." The whole is printed in our last number, pp. 502, sqq.

2o. “Plena hæc Patrum omnium (vel saltem fere omnium) consensio non solum expedit, sed omnino postulari videtur, quando agitur de capite doctrinæ definiendo: præsertim in re tanti momenti; quæ sane nemine (si id fieri possit) dissentiente definiri deberet.

3°. Hoc autem tempore ejusmodi unanimitas summopere necessaria videtur, ob voces in vulgus sparsas et ubique creditas, quibus magna inter Patres hac de re discordia esse perhibetur. Unanimis Patrum definitio hostibus nostris sic temere gloriantibus os penitus obstrueret, et maximam Ecclesiæ Dei ædificationem pareret. Profecto satis hostium externorum habemus, quin in ipsis Ecclesiæ castris nova dissidia excitemus, vel ullo modo fovere videamur."

Mgr. Dupanloup gave Dr. Spalding an opportunity of explaining this passage, and drew from that prelate the disavowal and expression of change of opinion mentioned in the text.

+The" Civiltà" of June 18th has, for the third time, returned to the discussion, in a long and exhaustive article in reply to the pamphlet referred to in the text. Bnt as the anonymous author of the pamphlet has not introduced any new matter into the controversy, we are dispensed from the necessity of taking any special account of his work.

III.

In April (p. 496, note) we drew our readers' attention to a remark of the "Civiltà Cattolica," on the inaccurate expressions occasionally and incidentally used by certain eminent Ultramontane writers, concerning the extension of infallibility. The "Civiltà Cattolica "evidently feels keenly on this matter; for it repeated the same remark on April 17th (p. 217); and now, in its number for June 4th, it has once more reverted to the same theme. "Some controversialists," it says (p. 597), “in disputing on the subject of infallibility, speak only by accident, and then with but little exactness on its object; with superfluous polemical restrictions or concessions; although elsewhere they explain their meaning more adequately."*

We heartily concur with the "Civiltà" in this opinion; and we will take the liberty of illustrating it from Dom Gueranger's admirable work "La Monarchie Pontificale." We are led to choose this eminent writer for our comment, not from any disparagement of his signal claim on the respect of all Catholics, but for the very opposite reason. His authority as a theologian is so high, his replies to Mgr. Maret and Father Gratry are so triumphant and crushing, his services to the good cause are so singularly great, that there is the more danger to be dreaded from any incidental mistake of expression into which he may inadvertently fall. We will proceed, therefore, to explain what is the particular point to which we here refer.

It is the doctrine of all Ultramontanes without exception, that the Pope teaches ex cathedrâ only and always, when his intention is cognizable of imposing an obligation of absolute interior assent. But Dom Gueranger seems to think that this intention is never really cognizable unless it be expressly or equivalently stated in the document itself. In order that there may be an obligation on the faithful of giving the assent of Faith to a Council's doctrinal Decree, "it is necessary that the terms of that Decree should indicate the intention of imposing an obligation" (Monarchie Pontificale, p. 230). "It is by the tenour of the definitice Act, whatever it may be, that the Church knows with certainty the intention of that authority which speaks, and the extent of obligation imposed by that authority" (Ibid. p. 232)† For ourselves, on the

* Since this was in type, the subsequent number of the "Civiltà" has appeared; in which the extension of Infallibility is treated so powerfully and at such length, that we publish a translation of it in another part of our number.

In one place (p. 231) Dom Gueranger uses language, the more obvious sense of which is to deny the Church's infallibility in minor censures, in dogmatical facts, and indeed in everything except Definitions of Faith. No one, of course, would be more horrified than Dom Gueranger himself at being credited with so heterodox an opinion; but

contrary, we regard a different doctrine as absolutely certain; and indeed as one which cannot be denied without most serious results. We regard it as an absolutely certain and essential truth, that a Pope's or a Council's intention of obliging interior assent may be most completely known from extrinsic circumstances, though it be not directly or equivalently expressed in the pronouncement itself. Indeed, on the surface, Dom Gueranger's theory is met by most formidable instances in opposition; viz. by the very Creeds of the Church. If there be any infallible Rule of Faith in the world, indubitably by every Catholic the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds will be so accounted; yet neither of them expresses, either directly or equivalently, the obligation of belief which it imposes. In its original form, no doubt, an anathema of two or three contemporary heresies was appended to the Nicene Symbol: but those anathemas only covered an extremely small portion of the dogma declared in the Symbol; and, moreover, in the Constantinopolitan expansion which is now used they are entirely omitted. Similar remarks may be made on Pope Pius's Creed, which no Ultramontane regards as of less authority than the Tridentine Council itself. But as we are unable to discuss the question at the length which its importance deserves, we will on the present occasion attempt no more, than to show that, in other parts of his work, Dom Gueranger by no means hampers himself with that particular doctrine, which he has in one section incautiously expressed.

Indeed, when he is unsuspiciously contemplating history and not devising a theory, he is as far as possible removed from those, who would compress the catalogue of ex cathedrâ Acts within the smallest possible compass. On the contrary, we hardly know any theologian who includes so many Pontifical utterances in that category. He not only regards as ex cathedrâ the "Mirari Vos" (p. 141) and the "Quanta curâ Quanta curâ" (Ib. and p. 34)-in regard to which we never doubted his opinion, but he also so regards (p. 112) Boniface VIII.'s "Unam sanctam; "'* nay, Nicholas III.'s

this very fact illustrates the carelessness of language into which he has permitted himself to fall. The sentence runs thus (p. 231):-“ Bull, Brief, Decree-provided its promulgation be made it matters not [which form be chosen]. But the Pontiff must manifest his decision to the Church by a direct Act, announcing his intention to pronounce on the question; and must command the submission of faith, qualifying the contrary opinion with the note of heresy, and fulminating an anathema against those who should maintain it in future. The terms may vary, but such is the condition of a Decree of Faith pronounced ex cathedra." And the note, which Dom Gueranger appends, seems still more definitely to fix his words in the same sense. "For example," he says, 66 one may cite the Bull which defines the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The words heretic,' excommunication,' or 'anathema,' are not there to be found; still they are represented by equivalent terms," &c., &c.

* It is quite unintelligible to us how some excellent Catholics can have