صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

reads the extracts from the Galway Evidence which we gave in October (pp. 262-265). It is put forth as the recognized and established principle that, in return for his many kindnesses, the landlord has full right to expect from his tenants that they shall not vote against his candidate.

"C." then proceeds, if we rightly understand him, to deny the possibility of there being such a thing as landlord intimidation. These are his words:

I say further, that the expression "landlord intimidation" is a convenient but loose and, as generally used, worthless expression. I say that no man is bound to let land at less than its value; and that if he insists on getting the fair letting value of his land, he is not thereby guilty of intimidation. That he is bound neither by law nor by custom to give, as many do, gates, slates, timber, &c.; and that if he refuses to do so, he is not thereby guilty of intimidation. Ingenuity itself can make nothing of what is usually called landlord intimidation, except that it is the withholding of certain favours, which no law, human or divine, prescribes the granting of.

Certainly the landlord cannot be said to practise intimidation, when he merely refuses to let land at less than its value, or to make presents of timber, gates, and slates. Who indeed in the world ever dreamed that this does constitute intimidation? But the landlord may very truly be said to practise intimidation, if (expressly or by implication) he threatens to withhold such benefits from tenants, who will not vote for his candidate in order to oblige him. Or, to speak more correctly, we should make a distinction. If the tenants hold their land on such terms, that by doing what he threatens he would inflict on them severe suffering, then his threats are precisely "intimidation": otherwise his procedure may more correctly be called "corruption "; because it is the offer of pecuniary largess for political dishonesty. Which of the two-intimidation or corruption-be the more morally disgraceful, we need not attempt to determine.

As a matter of fact however, every one knows that in Ireland the former alternative is the true one. Owing to the excessive competition for land, the whole body of tenants (generally speaking) accede to terms of contract, which they cannot fulfil in their integrity without severe suffering. Many a landlord has long taken advantage of this fact, to impose on his tenantry that intolerable political yoke against which we have inveighed. Thanks to the zeal of the priesthood, assisted by the Land Bill and the Ballot Bill, this yoke can no longer be maintained. "C." implies that, as a matter of course, the landlord will be induced by this circumstance to raise his rents and inflict on his tenants the physical suffering therein

involved. We find however, from his supplementary letter, that he is not himself a landlord; and we entirely refuse to believe that, if he were himself under a landlord's responsibilities, he would act on the advice he is so prompt in giving to others. Nor do we expect that any of the landlords will so act. We believe that their misdeeds proceed far more from thoughtlessness, narrow-mindedness, and class-feeling, than from hard-heartedness or any pleasure felt by them in oppressing their tenantries. But let us suppose for a moment one were found to do as "C." suggests. Let us suppose that some one were found to raise his rents and inflict severe suffering on his tenants, from mere spite at having lost a power, which he ought to be ashamed of himself for having ever desired; the power of coercing them into a dishonest vote. We believe most of our readers will agree with ourselves in declaring without hesitation, that such a fellow would be unworthy of mixing in the society of upright and honourable men.

There is nothing else in "C.'s" supplementary letter, which calls on us for comment.


No. III.


[In presenting our readers with F. Bottalla's concluding remarks on the great Honorius controversy, we would draw their special attention to one circumstance. After our own last article on Honorius had been written (April, 1870), F. Colombier introduced quite a new element into the discussion. He maintained in the "Etudes," that S. Agatho died one year earlier than is commonly supposed; and that no attempt was made in the Council to touch Honorius's memory, until the legates lost their full authority by the Pope's death. F. Bottalla, having carefully examined F. Colombier's proofs, has added the great weight of his own judgment in favour of the same opinion.]

THE second proposition Mr. Renouf undertook to prove in his second pamphlet is that Pope Honorius was condemned for heresy by ecumenical councils and by Popes. We must not forget that the main purpose of Mr. Renouf's first pamphlet was to show from the condemnation of Pope Honorius that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was in conflict with incontrovertible facts. But he was fully aware that the simple fact of this

Pope being condemned as a heretic, however certain it might be, would not advance the main point he had in view, unless he proves firstly, that the ecumenical Council, in the full exercise of its authority, had condemned him for heresy, which he had taught ex cathedra; and secondly that Pope Leo II., when confirming the Council and its decree, acknowledged the sentence in the exact meaning intended by the majority of the Council, before the terms of the final definition of faith had been definitively settled. Mr. Renouf indeed undertook to prove in the last part of his second as well as of his first pamphlet, that the error of Honorius was an ex cathedra pronouncement. But this implies that Pope Honorius erred in a dogma of faith, a view which we have already refuted. Wherefore the last part of Mr. Renouf's pamphlet fails to bear out that which precedes it. That gentleman should have proved from the documents of the Sixth Council, that the assembled fathers condemned Honorious for an error taught ex cathedra; and moreover that Leo II. confirmed this sentence in that very sense. For unless the Sixth Synod condemned the Pope for an error taught ex cathedra, its sentence could by no means affect the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. And further, unless Pope Leo II. confirmed the sentence of condemnation in this very sense, it would be legally null, and in nowise entitled to our veneration.

These are the two capital points on which the whole controversy hinges. Hence any one may easily perceive how far Mr. Renouf has misunderstood and misrepresented the point in question in his two pamphlets. He seems surprised at Dr. Ward's insisting on these two essential points; and he believes that his critics have entirely misunderstood the drift and bearing of his arguments, since they adopt this view of the main point in question. But the mistake is wholly his own. That part of his pamphlet is directly calculated to mislead his readers, both as to the main issue of the controversy and as to the line of defence which I with others have pursued in order to Honorius's rehabilitation. He undertakes to prove that Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Council for no other offence than that of heresy. For this purpose he accumulates the names of the numerous Catholic theologians, who have admitted that the Synod really condemned Honorius for heresy. Among them we meet with all who believed that the Acts of the Council had been tampered with, and who, on that account, were led to exaggerate the import of the synodical judgment in order to establish thereby the spuriousness of the conciliar record. But all those quotations serve but to throw dust into the eyes of those who are not acquainted with the Honorian controversy. Mr. Renouf knew full well that even Dr. Ward, though so uncompro

mising and indefatigable a champion of Papal Infallibility, thought it more probable that the Bishops of the Sixth Council intended to condemn Honorius expressly as a heretic. And he should also have remembered that F. Colombier, in his able articles in defence of Pope Honorius, likewise admits that this Pontiff was anathematized by the Synod as guilty of heresy.* It was therefore needless for Mr. Renouf to give us a list of old names, since two of the greatest supporters of Papal Infallibility in our day are of that opinion. Mr. Renouf had better have drawn up, if he could, a catalogue of the Catholic (not Gallican) theologians, who may have maintained that Pope Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Council for heresy taught ex cathedra. Then his labour of collecting the names of divines of former ages would not have been utterly lost.

These preliminary remarks will suffice to show our readers the kind of controversy which we have in hand, and the plan which we have followed in our Apology of Pope Honorius. In the last part of our pamphlet we observed that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is in nowise concerned by the nature of the offence for which Pope Honorius was condemned. Though we treated that question at length, and we still hold the opinion that the several passages of the Acts of the Council concerning Honorius's condemnation are susceptible of a milder interpretation, at least with respect to the mind of the majority of the Synod, nevertheless we are fully aware that both in past centuries and in our age learned theologians and zealous defenders of Papal Infallibility have upheld a contrary view. We therefore did not make it the main subject of our Apology; since we had principally in view to defend Papal Infallibility against an old objection. Our Apology then may be divided into two parts: the first is that the Synod did not intend to condemn Honorius for a dogmatical error taught ex cathedra; the second, that Pope Leo II. gave his sanction to the final condemnation of Honorius, only in as much as it implied that he had grievously failed in the discharge of his pastoral duty. We deem this point the most important in the controversy, since no sentence of a Council would gain currency in the Church unless stamped with the sanction of the Pope himself. Mr. Renouf took no account of our plan in the discussion; he misunderstood our views, and insisted only on proving what is readily admitted by many Catholics, without prejudice to their adhesion to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Yet did he flatter himself that he had given the coup-de-gráce to this dogma, merely because he

* 66 Études Rel. Hist.," Sér. iv. liv. de Mars, 1870, p. 390, seq. "Pope Honorius I. before the Tribunal of Reason and History,” p. 95.

thought he had shown that Honorius was branded by the fathers of the sixth Council as guilty of heresy.

But, to return to our subject. In the first part of our discussion we laid the principal stress of our argument on the letters of Pope Agatho proclaiming Papal Infallibility, and on the unquestioning assent the Council, both before and after its condemnation of Honorius, indisputably gave to his claims. Mr. Renouf thought that this was the main argument we relied upon in order to show that Honorius was not condemned for heresy. Be it so. He went on to say that Pope Agatho's letter in nowise implied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility: in proof whereof he alleged arguments so flimsy, that they could serve only to entrap the ignorant. Dr. Döllinger himself, who, as all know, is by no means prejudiced in favour of Papal Infallibility, asserted that this very doctrine was cunningly inserted by Pope Agatho in his letters to the Emperor and to the Council.* But whether cunningly inserted or not, certain it is that the assembled Bishops received these letters without the slightest protest or gainsaying, and made no reserve or exception in their submission. In our pamphlet we recalled some facts strongly bearing on this subject; but which need not to be repeated here. As to the remarks of Mr. Renouf on the letters of Pope Agatho, having plainly shown in our book on Papal Infallibility how groundless and erroneous they are, we now dismiss the subject, and refer our readers to that part of our work.‡

We will here examine what Mr. Renouf brings forward against our second proposition as to the import of the confirmation given by Pope Leo II. to the condemnation of Honorius. But we have first to make the following observations on our opponent's assertious as to the necessity of the Papal sanction being appended to the decrees of a General Council. He acknowledges indeed that the Pope's approbation is requisite in order that a Council may be deemed Ecumenical; but he maintains that "when after its close, the Pope has once acknowledged it as Ecumenical. . . . every Catholic looks upon its declarations, with reference to faith and morals as having been specially assisted by the Holy Ghost." Mr. Renouf evidently misunderstands the Catholic doctrine, and thereby invalidates his whole argument, as Dr. Ward excellently observes in his review of Mr. Renouf's pamphlets. First he misunderstands the Catholic doctrine, in that he calls a doctrine, common to Catholic theolo

[blocks in formation]
« السابقةمتابعة »