M. de Kisseleff was, besides, furnished with a circumstantial

memorandum in which the grievances raised in the Pope's letter
200
were reduced to their just value by a series of acts and figures difficult to refute.
Lastly, in a confidential letter addressed to M. de Kisseleff, Prince Gortchakoff, foreseeing cases for which these concessions would still seem insufficient, made the following remarks : —
" I am not far from believing that the Court of Rome has still greater aspirations ; but it appears to me that it would be difficult for her to confess to them, as that would entail throwing off her mask before all Europe. If the Papal Government is not content to see her Envoy received on the same footing as one who resides in a country which is essentially Roman Catholic, the responsibility of a refusal will not fall on us, and you would then take care that the facilities offered by the Imperial Cabinet should not be ignored.*
It is worth noticing that, in the Roman Collection, the slightest allusion to documents of such importance, or to the negotiations which were their consequence, is carefully avoided.
Nevertheless, it is certain that M. de Kisseleff exchanged with the Cardinal Secretary of State long explanations on the subject of the Pope's correspondence with the Emperor. With regard to sending the Nuncio, his Eminence even asked the Russian Minister what was meant by " the position of the representative of the Holy See in Paris." He took pains to show a distinc- tion between the theory of the French legislation and their practice, in virtue of which the restrictive stipulations of the organic institutions would not be made use of in France. This perseverance, in making the sending of the Nuncio dependent on the concession of prerogatives which even France, though a Roman Catholic country, has always refused to the Holy See, as is proved by the incident which occurred in 1865, and is related above, revealed second thoughts which the Imperial Cabinet had a right to distrust, and which entailed, as a necessary conse- quence, the abandonment of that combination for the present as well as for the future. His Holiness, too, expressed himself very clearly in this respect. On the 6th of June, 1863, having granted M. de Kisseleff a private audience, His Holiness, after
* Despatch and confidential letter from Prince Gortchakoff to M. de Kisseleff, May llth, 1803.
201
conversing for some time about the Emperor's letter the exis- tence of which is now denied, added " That he thought the state of affairs was too critical for the presence of a Nuncio at St. Petersburg to be of any practical utility, and that under existing circumstances it would be embarrassing."*
The ill-will and hostility of the Court of Rome manifested themselves at this period in exact proportion to the difficulties, at home and abroad, which the Imperial Government had to fight against.
On August 31 the Cardinal Vicar of Rome published an edict, inviting the inhabitants of the capital to take part in a procession destined to disarm the Divine wrath which was excited by the growing want of faith and the iniquities which characterize the unhappy century in which we live.
After citing as a proof of this Divine wrath the cattle-plague now raging in the Papal States, the Cardinal Vicar ended his edict by saying : — " Besides, it is the will of His Holiness that under these circumstances special prayers be made for unfortunate Poland, which we see with grief become the scene of massacres and bloodshed. The Polish nation, always having been Catholic, has served as a bulwark against the invasion of error; certainly, therefore, she deserves to be prayed for, in order that she may be freed from the evils by which she is afflicted, may never lose her reputation, and may always show herself to be faithful to the charge which has been entrusted to her."
Meanwhile the Russian nation nocked round the Throne with a readiness almost unexampled in history. They declared to the whole world that they were prepared to spill the last drop of their blood to defend the dignity of their Sovereign and the integrity of their national territory.
An armed force quelled the insurrection. Foreign interference grew slack, and became exhausted for want of combination and elements of action. The painful but unavoidable work of putting down the insurrection once accomplished, the Emperor owed it to himself as well as to the evident interests of all his subjects, to prevent the recurrence of such calamitous disturbances, by
* Despatches of M. de Kisseleff, June 8th (20th), 1803. Nos. 41, 42, 43.
202
remedying one by one the organic vices which throve in Polish society. A series of reforms, prompted by the teaching of experience, as well as of political shrewdness, were studied, debated, and perfected ; and it is from the increased but undis- turbed application of these that will result, with God's help, the salutary and desirable work of the real regeneration of a nation of the same stock, the same race, and governed by the same sceptre as the Russian people, and whose destiny is consequently inseparable from that of Russia.
Of these reforms none were perhaps so urgent as those which were adopted with regard to the Roman Catholic clergy of the kingdom.
The number of monastic institutions had multiplied endlessly, and the facts set forth above showed the active part taken in the insurrection by the regular clergy.
In spite of the canonical laws, and the Bull of Benedict XIV., of May 2, 1744, there were in the kingdom seventy-five convents which existed contrary to the prescriptions of this Bull. These convents were suppressed ; their lands were secularized, and their* revenues devoted to the maintenance of the retained cloisters, as well as to charity and public instruction.
Like measures were taken with regard to the parochial clergy. The revenues of these latter were divided as injudiciously as they were unfairly. The large majority of the parish priests were left in want, whilst the higher clergy and a few favoured ones realized enormous sums.
An end was put to that sad state of things by a series of measures in conformity with those which were adopted in more than one Catholic State.
It was impossible to maintain in their episcopal sees the prelates who had rendered themselves conspicuous by their illegalities and animosities against the Government.
Archbishop Felinski was sent to Yaroslaw, but preserved his jurisdiction and his salary. However, having broken his word by sending to his vicar, Rzewuski, secret instructions ordering him to keep on the ecclesiastical mourning in the kingdom, he was ultimately deprived of the administration of his diocese.
The Government acted with 'even less severity towards
203
Monsignor Kalinski, the United Greek Bishop of Chelm, in spite of the active part he took in the insurrectionary movement, and the fanaticism with which he took pains to impose on his flock the rites and ceremonies of the Romish Church ; the authorities of the kingdom received orders not to consent to the consecration of this bishop.
On the 24th of April, 1864, the Pope delivered at the College of the Propaganda an allocution, the violence of which it was afterwards sought to weaken, and the terms of which were contested, but it is certain that his Majesty the Emperor was personally accused " of tormenting and oppressing the Church, of attacking the Catholic faith, and persecuting unfortunate people for having remained true to death to the religion of Christ."
The Pope repeated that accusation in his Encyclical Letter of July 30, 1864, to the Bishops of Poland, whom he exhorted to remain constant and persevering.
The Emperor could not, consistently with his own dignity, continue to be represented at the Court of a Sovereign thus acting towards His Majesty, and M. de KisselefT was recalled from Rome. The management of the Imperial Legation at Rome was left to the First Secretary, Baron Meyendorff, who was instructed to observe an absolute reserve and to refrain from any diplomatic initiative. Meantime, the Imperial Government, seeing it was useless to entertain regular relations with a Govern- ment the bad disposition of which was manifested by such acts, confined itself to acknowledge the communications from Rome without any commentary.
Baron Meyendorff, who had abstained from going to the Vatican for nearly a year, was unofficially told that his abstention was producing a painful impression, and that the Roman Government would be glad that it ceased.
He asked for instructions from his Government, and was authorized to offer his homage to the Holy Father on the occasion of the reception of the diplomatic body at Christmas.
On December 27, 1865, he had the honour of being received by the Pope.
The incidents, much to be regretted, of that interview have
204
been published and interpreted in the most inaccurate manner. No one having been present at that interview, it would have been necessary to oppose the assertions of a simple diplomatic functionary to those of the Sovereign Pontiff. The Imperial Cabinet abstained from doing so for reasons easy to appreciate.
But the Court of Rome thought fit to raise so delicate a question. In doing so it has published official documents, and backed them by assertions which it is impossible not to rectify now.
After enumerating the questions touched upon by His Holiness in this audience, the official narrator of the Holy See expresses himself as follows : —
" Yet the Charge d' Affaires did not hesitate to contest the authenticity of such notorious facts. After some allusions, unseemly in the presence of His Holiness, he presumed to say that nothing of this sort would have happened if the Catholics had behaved like the Protestants, for the latter having sup- ported the Government during the insurrection, had received many favours refused to the Catholics on account of their hostile attitude ; and he pushed his audacity to the conclusion that there was nothing surprising in the way the Catholics had acted, as Catholicism is identical with revolution. On this reply, the Pope, inflamed with just indignation, and feeling that the cause of the faithful (whose august chief he is) was generally insulted, dismissed him, answering — ' I esteem and respect his Majesty the Emperor, but I cannot say as much for his Charge d' Affaires, who, contrary to his Sovereign's orders, I am sure, has come and insulted me in my cabinet/ "*
Although we wish to spare the adherents of the Roman Catholic religion details which can only vex them, it is necessary to repel some of these assertions.
The Russian Charge d' Affaires did not allow himself to say that Catholicism and revolution were one and the same thing. What he said was, that in Poland, Catholicism had allied itself to revolution. That fact, profoundly to be regretted, had become
* Roman Documents, pages 53 and 54.
205
historical ; it had been reported to the Holy See more than once, on whom alone it depended to prevent it.
His Holiness having attributed to the Emperor the intention of persecuting the Church, his Majesty's Charge d' Affaires was able and bound to oppose to this most gratuitous assertion a truth, melancholy, no doubt, but incontrovertible. As the Russian Charge d'Affaires had been abruptly dismissed by the Pope, all diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome became impossible, and the Imperial Cabinet consequently sent Baron Meyendorff orders to acquaint Cardinal Anton elli that, after the reception he had had from His Holiness, his mission was ended, as the Emperor could not maintain at the Papal Court a representative whose dignity was not sheltered from all attack.
Baron Meyendorff obeyed his orders on the 9th February, 1866. Cardinal Anton elli, after expressing his regret, asked him if he was to consider this a recall of the Imperial Legation. Baron Meyendorff answered that he was awaiting fresh orders at Rome, and only acting as transactor of passing business, and that the mechanism of" the Legation would continue to discharge its functions.
This state of affairs lasted till the 13th of March. Cardinal Antonelli then told Baron Meyendorff officially, " That since he declared his political mission to be ended, the Court of Rome looked upon the Russian Legation as no longer existing ; that if the Pope had not sent him his passports, it was only because His Holiness knew that he must depart in a few weeks, and because, as he had said that he was staying at Rome till further commands, in order to transact current business, his Eminence had consented that the Legation should continue its functions in order that be- fore its departure it might have every facility for settling the same ; and lastly, that it was not the Pope's intention to allow a new Russian Legation to be formed at Rome after the departure of Baron Meyendorff ; and that, as for the interests of Russian subjects, Baron Meyendorff might entrust them to the Embassy of some other Power."
After that declaration the Second Secretary of Legation, left at Rome to keep the archives, received the order to take down the Russian arms from the hotel, and declare to Cardinal
206
Antonclli that "the Pope having taken the initiative of the breaking off of the relations, His Majesty declined the responsi- bilities that might ensue."
In one of the official communications of the Court of Rome the Cardinal Secretary of State wrote in 1865 : —
" That His Holiness hoped that the Emperor would not put his conscience to the unavoidable necessity of revealing to the whole world the series of prejudices from which the Roman Catholic Church is continually suffering in the Imperial and Royal territory."*
He received the following answer to his threat : —
" The conscience of our august Master absolves him from all intention of oppressing the Catholic religion. We shall look for- ward with perfect calmness to the execution of the threat which terminates the memorandum of Cardinal Antonelli."
The above facts bear witness that the Imperial Cabinet had very strong motives for not fearing this appeal to public opinion, and that in abrogating the Concordat of 1847, after having exhausted all attempts at reconciliation, it only accepted the consequences of a position, the origin and responsibility of which belong to the Holy See.
* Memorandum from the Cardinal Secretary of State, dated 30th Jan., 1865.
20:
LETTER OF THE LATE COUNT MONTALEMBERT, ON ULTRAMONTANISM AND PAPAL INFALLI- BILITY, WRITTEN NOT LONG BEFORE HIS DEATH.
Paris, the 28th of February, 1870.
"Sir, — Since you are good enough to interest yourself in my former speeches and in my present opinions, you probably are aware that for several years past I have suffered from an incurable malady which forbids my writing and walking, and only at long intervals leaves me sufficient leisure, and my mind sufficiently free, to busy myself with the labours or the questions to which my life has been devoted. Thus will be explained to you my very involuntary delay in replying to the letter you did me the honour to address to me on the 16th of this month, respecting the contradiction you think you discern between my speeches on the Chapter of St. Denys, in tbe Chamber of Peers in 1847, and my approbation of the recent letters addressed by Father Gratry to Monseigneur the Archbishop of Malines. I desire first to thank you, Sir, for having thus afforded me an opportunity of reverting to a period now so distant, at the same time that I •explain myself on the questions of the day.
"That said, I beg you to observe that the Gallicanism of which I was the resolute and victorious adversary twenty-five years ago had only the name in common with that with which you reproach the Rev. Father Gratry. The Gallicanism I then called a mummy was no other than that which my old colleague and friend, Count Daru, ridiculed the other day when he said, in replying to M. Rouland, ' You are mistaking the century.1" It was solely the oppressive or vexatious intervention of the temporal power in spiritual interests : an interference which a portion of our old and illustrious French clergy had sometimes too easily accepted. But I venture to say that you will not find, any more in my speech of 1847 than in my other speeches or writings, a single word in con- formity with the doctrines or pretensions of the Ultramontanes of the present day; and that for an excellent reason — which is, that
p
208
nobody had thought of advocating or raising them during the period between my entrance into public life and the advent of the Second Empire. Never thank Heaven, have I thought, said, or written anything favourable to the personal and separate infalli- bility of the Pope, such as it is sought to impose upon us ; nor to the theocracy, the dictatorship of the Church, which I did my best to reprobate in that history of the Monks of the West of which you are pleased to appreciate the laborious fabric ; nor to that Absolutism of Home of which the speech that you quote disputed the existence, even in the Middle Ages, but which to- day forms the symbol and the programme of the faction dominant among us.
" Assuredly, if any one would kindly point out to me anything to correct or to retract in what I may have spoken from the tribune of the Luxembourg, or from that of the Palais Bourbon, and if I felt convinced of my wrong, it would be in no way painful to me to confess him in the right, for where is the public man to whom twenty-three years of experience and of revolutions have not taught something ?
" But when I read again with you my words of 1847, I find nothing, or scarcely anything, to change in them. I feel that, did the occasion arise, I to-day should again oppose all against which I then contended, and that I should proclaim, now as then, the reciprocal incompetence of the Church and of the State outside the boundary of their proper domain, without desiring that their mutual independence should lead to their absolute separation.
"At the same time I willingly admit that, if I have nothing to cancel I should have a great deal to add. I sinned by omission, or rather by want of foresight. I said, ' Gallicanism is dead, because it made itself the servant of the State ; you have now only to inter it.' I think I then spoke the truth. It was dead, and completely dead. How, then, has it risen again ? I do not hesitate to reply that it is in consequence of the lavish encour- agement given, under the pontificate of Pius IX., to exaggerated doctrines, outraging the good sense as well as the honour of the human race, — doctrines of which not even the coming shadow was perceptible under the Parliamentary Monarchy.
209
" There are wanting, then, to that speech, as to the one I made in the National Assembly on the Roman expedition, essential reservations against spiritual despotism, and against absolute monarchy, which I have always detested in the State, and which does not inspire me with less repugnance in the Church.
" But, in 1847, what could give rise to a suspicion that the liberal pontificate of Pius IX., acclaimed by all the Liberals of the two worlds, would become the pontificate represented and personified by the Univers and the Civilta ? In the midst of the unanimous cries then uttered by the clergy in favour of liberty as in Belgium, of liberty in everything and/or all, how could we foresee, as possible, the incredible wheelabout of almost all that same clergy in 1852 — the enthusiasm of most of the Ultramontane Doctors for the revival of Csesarism ? The harangues of Monseigneur Parisis, the charges of Monseigneur de Salinis, and especially the permanent triumph of those lay theologians of absolutism who began by squandering all our liberties, all our principles, all our former ideas, before Napoleon III., and after- wards immolated justice and truth, reason and history, in one great holocaust to the idol they raised up for themselves at the Vatican ?
" If that word idol seems to you too strong, please to lay the blame on what Monseigneur Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, wrote to me on the 10th of September, 1853 : — ' The new Ultramontane school leads us to a double idolatry — the idolatry of the temporal power and of the spiritual power. When you formerly, like ourselves, M. le Comte, made loud professions of Ultramontanism you did not understand things thus. We defended the independence of the spiritual power against the pretensions and encroachments of the temporal power, but we respected the constitution of the State and the constitution of the Church. We did not do away with all intermediate power, all hierarchy, all reasonable discussion, all legitimate resistance, all individuality, all spontaneity. The Pope and the Emperor were not, one the whole Church, and 'the other the whole State. Doubtless there are times when the Pope may set himself above all the rules which are only for ordinary times, and when his power is as extensive as the necessities of the Church. The old
210
Ultramontanes kept this in mind, but they did not make a rule of the exception. The new Ultramontanes have pushed every- thing to extremes, and have abounded in hostile arguments against all liberties — those of the State as well as those of the Church — and against the serious religious interests of the present time, and especially of a future day. One might be content with despising them, but when one has a presentiment of the evils they are preparing for us it is difficult to be silent and resigned. You have therefore done well, M. le Comte, to stigmatise them.'
"Thus, Sir, did the pastor of the largest diocese in Christendom express himself seventeen years ago, congratulating me upon one of my first protests against the spirit which, since then, I have never ceased to combat. For it is not to-day but in 1852 that I began to struggle against the detestable political and religious aberrations which make up contemporary Ultra- montanism.
" Here, then, traced by the pen of an Archbishop of Paris, is the explanation of the mystery that pre-occupies you, and of the contrast you point out between my Ultramontanism of 1847 and my Gallicanism of 1870.
"Therefore, without having either the will or the power to discuss the question now debating in the Council, I hail with the most grateful admiration, first, the great and generous Bishop of Orleans, then the eloquent and intrepid priests who have had the courage to stem the torrent of adulation, impos- ture, and servility, by which we run the risk of being swallowed up. Thanks to them, Catholic France will not have remained too much below Germany, Hungary, and America ; and I pub- licly pride myself, and more than I can express by words, upon having them for friends and for brother academicians. I have but one regret, that of being prevented by illness from descending into the arena with them, not, certainly, on the ground of theology, but on that of history and of the social and political consequences of the system they contend against. Thus should I deserve my share (and it is the only ambition remaining to me) in those litanies of abuse daily launched against my illustrious friends by a too numerous portion of that poor clergy which pre- pares1 for itself so sad a destiny, and which I formerly loved,
211
defended, and honoured as it had not hitherto been in modern France.
" I thank you once more, Sir, for having enabled me thus to say what I think, and I should be a great deal more obliged to you if I could hope that you would obtain the publication of this letter in one of the journals with which your opinions must put you in intercourse.
"Accept, &c.,
" CH. DE MONTALEMBERT."
We need only remind our readers that Archbishop Sibour, whose curious and really admirable letter Count Montalembert quotes, was appointed to the See of Paris by General Changarnier, after the death of Monseigneur Affre, in June, 1848, and was murdered, like his predecessor.
DR. DOLLINGER AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.
The Dusseldorf Gazette publishes a letter addressed by Dr. Dollinger to the Archbishop of Munich, in explanation of his refusal to submit to the decree of the Council concerning the Infallibility of the Pope. The following are important points of the letter : —
"Your excellency has asked me in two letters to explain my position with respect to the Roman Decrees of July 18, 1870, which have been published by you.
"It has transpired in the circle of your cathedral chapter that it is your intention to proceed against me with such penal measures as are used only against priests who have been guilty of gross moral crimes, and even but seldom against these, if I do not, within a certain period, submit myself to the two new articles of faith, as to the omnipotence and Infallibility of the Pope.
"I learn at the same time that a council meeting of German bishops is to take place shortly at Fulda.
" In the year 1848, when a meeting of all the German bishops was held at Wurzburg, the honour of an invitation
212
was extended to myself, and I took part in the proceedings. Your excellency might perhaps arrange that I should be allowed in the meeting which is ahout to take place, not this time to take part in the proceedings, but to have an audience for a few hours.
"For I am prepared to prove before this meeting the follow- ing theses, which are of decisive importance for the present situation of the German Church, as well as for my personal position.
" First, the new Articles of Faith are based upon the texts in the Holy Scriptures, St. Matt. xvi. 18,* and St. John xxi. 17, f and, as far as infallibilty is concerned, upon the text, St. Luke xxii. 32,J with which the same, Biblically considered, must stand or fall. But we are bound by a solemn oath, which I myself have twice sworn, to ' accept and to explain the Holy Scriptures, not otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.' The Fathers of the Church have all, without exception, explained the texts in question as bearing a totally different meaning from the new decrees, and in the text St. Luke xxii. 32, especially, have found anything but an infallibility given to the Pope. There- fore, were I to accept this explanation with the decrees, with- out which every Biblical basis is wanting to them, I should commit a perjury. And, as I have said, I am prepared to prove this to the bishops in council.
" Secondly, in several episcopal pastorals and notices which have lately appeared, the assertion has been made, or the historical proof sought, that the new doctrine now proceeding from Rome as to the universal power of the Pope over every single Christian, and as to the Papal infallibility in decisions in the Church on matters of faith from the beginning, through
* Matt. xvi. 18. — " And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I -noil build my Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
t St. John xxi. 17.—" He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all tilings ; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus said unto him, Feed my sheep."
I St. Luke xxii. 32. — "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,"
213
all time and for ever, has been generally, or, at least, nearly generally, believed and taught. I am prepared to shew that this assertion is based upon an entire misconception of the traditions of the Church for the first thousand years, and upon an entire distortion of her history. It is in direct contradiction to the plainest facts and testimonies.
" Thirdly, I am ready to prove that the bishops of the Latin countries, Spain, Italy, South America, and France, who formed the immense majority at Rome, were, with their clergy, already led astray by the class-books from which they took their ideas during their seminary education, the proofs given in these books being for the most part false, invented, or distorted. I shall prove this, first, with the two principal and favourite works of modern theological schools and seminaries, 'The Moral Philosophy of S. Alphonsus Liguori' (especially as regards the treatise contained therein concerning the Pope), and ' The Theology of the Jesuit Peroni ' ; further, with the writings of the Archbishop Cardoni, and of Bishop Ghilardi, which were distributed in Rome during the Council ; and finally, with ' The Theology of the Vienesse Theologian Schwetz.'
" Fourthly, I appeal to the fact, which I am prepared to prove in public, that two General Councils and several Popes have already decided in the fifteenth century, by solemn decrees, issued by the Councils, and repeatedly confirmed by the Popes, the question as to the extent of the Pope's power, and as to his infallibility, and that the decrees of the 18th of July, 1870, are in the most glaring contradiction to these resolutions, and, therefore, cannot possibly be considered as binding.
"Fifthly, I believe that I shall be able to demonstrate that the new decrees are simply incompatible with the constitutions of the States of Europe, and especially with that of Bavaria; and that I, who am bound by oath to this constitution, which I have lately sworn on my admission to the Chamber of the Councillors of State, find it impossible to accept the new decrees, and as their necessary consequence, the Bulls ' Unam Sanctam ' and ' Cum ex Apostolatus officio,' tbe Syllabus of Pius IX., with so many other Papal declarations and laws, which are now to be accepted as infallible decisions although
214
they are in irreconcileable antagonism to the laws of the country. I appeal on this subject to the opinion given by the Legal Faculty in Munich, and I am ready to abide by the arbitration of any German Legal Faculty which your excel- lency may be pleased to name.
" I only ask two conditions for the conference which I have proposed, or rather prayed for ; first, that my assertions, together with any counter- assertions, shall be recorded, with a view to their subsequent publication ; secondly, that a man of scientific culture, to be chosen by me, shall be allowed to be present at the conference.
"Should this be unattainable before the German bishops in Fulda, I venture most respectfully to make another request : that it may please your excellency to form, out of the members of your cathedral chapter, a committee, before which I may plead my cause in the way above mentioned. Several of these venerable gentlemen are Doctors, and were formerly Professors of Theology, and were once my scholars. I may assume that it would be more agreeable to them to treat with me in quiet argument, to confute me, if possible, with reasons and facts, than to draw up, upon the seat of judgment, criminal sentences against me, and to submit the same to your excellency, to be fulminated, as the saying is. If your excellency will consent to preside at this conference, and will condescend to correct any errors into which I may have fallen in the citation and explanation of testimonies and facts, I shall count it as a great honour, and the cause of truth must be profited thereby. And when you place before me the prospect of the exercise of your pastoral power, I may still hope that you will prefer to employ, in the first place, towards me, the finest, most noble, most benevolent, and most Christlike attribute of this power — namely, the teacher's office. Should I be convinced by testi- monies and facts, I engage myself to revoke publicly all that I have written in this matter, and so confute myself. In any case the results must be advantageous to the Church and the peace of souls. For it is not I alone who am concerned ; but thousands of the clergy, hundreds of thousands of the laity, who think as I do, and find it impossible to accept the new articles of faith.
215
" Up to this day not a single one, even of those who have signed a declaration of submission, has said to me that he is really convinced of the truth of these theses. All my friends and acquaintances confirm me in this experience ; ' not a single person believes in it/ is what I hear day by day from all lips. A conference such as I have proposed, and the publication of the proceedings, will in any case afford that deeper insight which so many long for.
" Your excellency may refer me to the pastoral letter which has recently appeared under the sanction of your name, as a source whence I might derive sufficient instruction and correction in respect to the opinions I hold : but I must avow that it has produced a totally contrary effect upon me, and I engage to show that this pastoral letter contains a long series of misunderstood, distorted, mutilated, or invented testimonies, which, together with the suppression of importants facts and opposite testimonies, present a picture totally dissimilar to the real tradition. Assuredly the person to whom your excellency confided this composition has not invented the falsifications, but has borrowed them in good faith from others (from Cardoni and others) ; but if he be willing to defend his elaboration at the proposed conference, he would find me ready, within a very few hours, either to prove my allegations or, if I should not succeed therein, publicly to apologise and to make an honourable amend. In consideration, however, of the import- ance of this matter, I conceive it to be my duty to make this offer, subject to one condition only, namely, that his Majesty's government be requested to appoint an official, well versed in the knowledge of historical and ecclesiastical law, to be present at the conference as a witness. As this matter is also one of the highest interest for all governments I presume it may be taken for granted that such a request will not be refused on the part of the government.
"In the past history of the Church, facts are not wanting to prove that my proposal is in perfect harmony both with the principles and practice of the Church. Thus, in the year 411, a conference, consisting of 286 Catholic and 279 Don atist bishops, was held under the presidency of the Imperial official Marcel-
216
linns : at this conference the disputed doctrine of the Church was discussed, and the President decided in favour of the Catholic bishops. In the year 1433 Bohemian Calixtines appeared at the council at Basle. A decree of the Synod of Constance, issued eighteen years before, concerning the communion in one form, was then submitted to a new discussion and examina- tion, from which those compacts resulted, which were recog- nised by the Holy See, in virtue whereof an important and far-penetrating concession, and derogating from the older resolution, was made to the Bohemians. A still greater parallel to the discussion I propose is to be found in the conference, so celebrated in French history, between Du Perron, the Bishop of Evreux, and the Protestant statesman and scholar,