Page:The True Story of the Vatican Council.djvu/164

152 in order to protect a number of Catholic bishops from the claim laid upon them by the world as its servants, and to protest once for all that the motives, German Parliament of Frankfort. Even at that date, when all the great questions of our time were so frequently agitated, I think that I coincided with him in his political views. I recognise with grief that there is now a complete opposition between the opinions of the Provost Döllinger and my own as to the substance of the question which actually occupies our attention. The Provost Döllinger has been publicly pointed out as having co-operated with the author of that libel which appeared under the name of 'Janus,' and which is directed against the Church; and we have no evidence that he has hitherto thought fit to declare, as an obedient son of the Catholic Church, that he does not share the opinions which animate that work. The book of 'Janus ' is not only directed against the infallibility of the Pope, but even against his primacy, against that great and divine institution in the Church to which we owe so manifestly, by means of her unity, the victories of the Church over all her adversaries in all ages. 'Janus' is moreover a tissue of numberless falsifications of the facts of history, to which perhaps nothing but the 'Provincial Letters' of Pascal can be compared for violation of truth. And not only has the Provost Döllinger failed up to the present time to disavow his co-operation with the author of 'Janus,' but he is himself notoriously the anonymous author of the writing entitled 'Considerations presented to the Bishops of the Council on the Question of the Infallibility of the Pope ' a writing which is indeed much more moderate than 'Janus,' but which is nevertheless so perfectly similar to it in general tone of thought, and betrays aims so exactly identical, that the world, has justly inferred a most intimate connection between the authors of 'Janus' and of the 'Considerations.' … As to what concerns myself, and the notion that I may be one of those who agree with Dr Döllinger as to the substance of the questions most earnestly debated at this moment, I formally declare that nothing can be less true. I am in agreement only with the Dollinger whose lessons formerly filled his disciples with love and enthusiasm for the Church and the Apostolic See; I have nothing in common with the Döllinger whom the enemies of the Church and of the Apostolic See now load with praises.—†, Bishop of Mayence. Rom: February 8, 1870.' From the Vatican of February 25, 1870.