Page:William John Sparrow-Simpson - Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909).djvu/211

omitted, much to Schwarzenberg's astonishment. He noted in particular the absence of Hefele and Döllinger. But while Schwarzenberg wrote in this honest, impulsive way, Antonelli was in receipt of letters of another type from the Bavarian Nuncio, Meglia. According to the Nuncio, among the more hopeful and moderate German Professors was Dieringer of Bonn, who had been proposed for three bishoprics, including the Archiepiscopal See of Cologne. True, he had recently somewhat compromised his reputation by an attack on the Jesuit Kleutgen; but the Nuncio regarded this as a momentary aberration—the general opinion being that at fifty-six Dieringer was not likely to belie his past. To mix him with theologians in the Eternal City would place him more completely at the disposal of the Roman cause. Another promising person was the historian Hefele. True, that his History of the Councils contained some hazardous remarks; but the Nuncio evidently felt secure of him. "Now," adds Meglia, "it is very noticeable that no member of the German party of savants has been invited to Rome, and the result is that they are in a great state of irritation. It would be, therefore, prudent to meet this by a careful selection from the more moderate among them." As a result of this communication, Pius invited Dieringer, Hefele, and others: thus, the Augsburg Gazette observed, correcting the Italian monotony by an infusion of elements very necessary to give vitality. So Döllinger was left out. But he was by no means unoccupied. He was engaged in writing the five articles, criticising and condemning the Infallibility doctrine from an historical point of view, which appeared anonymously in March 1869 in the Augsburg Gazette. These articles attracted a great attention, and were regarded with profound disgust in Rome. In three months' time