tunism is in the long-run an untenable plea. As Quirinus says:—
"A minority may be invincible on the ground of dogma, but not on that of expediency. Everything can be ventured to oppose a false doctrine, but not to hinder an imprudent or premature definition of a truth."[1]
It laid them open to Manning's retort, "When was it ever inopportune to proclaim the truth?" It was the acid of such criticism which dissolved the apparent unity of the opposition. For it challenged the minority to say outright whether they believed the doctrine or denied its truth. And to do the latter in Rome under such conditions was no easy thing. Here was the fatal weakness by which the opposition came to grief. We may wonder what might have been the course of events had the opposition taken the bolder and stronger line.
Dupanloup knew perfectly that the publication of these searching criticisms on the doctrine proposed involved nothing less than the sacrifice of his popularity among the entire Ultramontane section of his Church. That however he could bear with comparative equanimity. Popularity had come to him: he never sought it. But what distressed him greatly was that his action would sadden Pius IX. True that the Bishop expressly confined himself to the question of opportunism, and that he pledged himself beforehand to accept the Council's decisions, whatever those decisions might be. Nevertheless, in his memorable words, "I go as a judge and a witness of the faith," he had formulated a conception of the episcopal function which was not only ancient and world-wide, but irreconcilable with the theory of Papal Infallibility.
- ↑ Page 256.
