no attack on the Council, although it was an attack on Ultramontanism."[1]
But Lord Acton proceeded to defend the Council in the Times newspaper[2] from Mr Gladstone's inferences.
"I affirmed that the apprehension of civil danger from the Vatican Council overlooks the infinite subtlety and inconsistency with which men practically elude the yoke of official uniformity in matters of opinion."
And, as an illustration of this infinite subtlety in eluding authority, he quoted the example of Archbishop Fénelon, who "while earning admiration for his humility under censure [by the Pope] had retained his former views unchanged." Fénelon wrote:—[3]
"I accept this Brief … simply absolutely and without shadow of reserve. God forbid that I should ever be remembered except as a pastor who believed it his duty to be more docile than the humblest of his sheep, and who placed no limit to his submission."
Three weeks later Fénelon wrote to a friend:—
"I acknowledge no uncertainty either as to the correctness of my opinions throughout or as to the orthodoxy of the doctrine which I have maintained. … Unless competent persons rouse themselves in Rome the faith is in great danger."
It was no more than natural, after such public letters, that Lord Acton should be called in question by the authorities of his Communion. It was asserted in the Roman Church that he did not believe the Vatican Decrees. Manning wrote to enquire what construction
