In 1862 Montalcmbert published a sketch of the life of Lacordaire (q. v.), which al)ounds. like all his other , productions, in loyal expressions to the Church of his |
birth as well as of his choice. His motto was still, "Tout pour I'Eglise et par I'figlise" (comp. Brit, and For. Ev. Rev. Oct. 1863, p. 722 sq.). In the same year he gave yet more emphatic expression to his devotion to Roman- ism in his oration before the Roman Catholi(j Congress held at Mechlin, and afterwards published in a sepa- I rate form under the title of L'Fglise Libre dans V Ftat j Libre (Paris, 1863, 8vo). As in the Chamber of Peers and in the Assembly, so also at tliis time count ^lon- talemliert's orations proved highly interesting, both on account of the eloquence of style and nobleness of sentiment, as well as because they contain so strong an advocacy of the principles of religious toleration. Yet it was not inappropriately said by a Protestant ' journal in 1864 that in these discourses he appeared not as the exponent of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, but rather as an opponent and impiigner of her teaching and authorit3% No doubt this was not his intention ; quite the contrary. Yet in these speeches we Protestants can only see that " he praises what she condemns. He aifirms what she denies. He claims as a right for everj' man what she refuses to accord to any. He, a devout Roman Catholic, defends doctrines which the head of the Church denounces as 'fatal,' and as ' works of Satan ;' and, so far at least as these doctrines are concerned, distinctly and unequivocally despises and denies the authority of the Church. In short, in these speeches count Montalcmbert has shown himself a good Protestant" (^Biit. and For. Ev. Rev, April, 1864, p. 337).
The foolhardy move of 1869 to establish the in- fallibility dogma -Nvas the first occasion on which Montalcmbert rose in direct antagonism to the pa- pacy. He clearly saw that the Jesuits were schem- ing the plot, and he boldly descended into the lists, and dealt vigorous sword-thrusts all around. Per- haps in his whole long and illustrious career Mon- talcmbert never committed a more courageous act, nor I ever clothed lofty and nol)le thoughts in nobler and I loftier language, than he did in his letter of Feb. 28, i 1870, addressed to a friend in England, and published ! in the London Times, March 7, 1870, in which he de- clared himself against the absolute tende:icy in the Church ; yes, he even boldly and uncompromisingly ] declared that he "gloried" in counting as his colleagues in the Academic Francaise two such great and good champions of truth as the bishop of Orleans and father Gratry, and he denounced the Jesuit intrigues at Rome as "idolatrous," quoting in sujtport of the word "idol," as applied to tlie pope, a most remarkable letter writ- ten to him seventeen years ago hy the (then) arch- bishop of Paris, IMgr. Sibour. " Nothing," said a cor- respondent of the N. Y. Xation, under date from Paris, March 11, 1870, "so strong, so decided, or so eloquent has yet appeared on this terrible Roman question as this letter of count Montalcmbert. It will lie read wherever the French tongue is spoken, and it will sujv port and console all right-thinking, high-minded Cath- olics— but the obloquy that will be cast upon M. de Montalembert bj' the Ultramontancs is indescrihaMe. He perceives the bare truth when he says that tlie ' Litany of Abuse' will be lavished upon him. It will be .so unlimitedly, and it will require all the genuine- ness of his faith and all the chivalry of his nature to bear what will be his inevitable fate." Of course such an act was enough to eclipse all the services of a life- time. He had dared to act in harmony with the avowed opinions of his youth; he had sujiported the demands of the (Jerman Catholics, and heVas to liear forever the sorrow of such a self-willed act, and it is most painful to reflect that not even his spirit was suf- fered to pass away in peace ; tliat his dying hours were troubled by an imperative call to choose his side in a wantonly provoked schism. He died Jfarcli 15, 1870, just sixteen days after writing his memorable letter on papal infallibility. In reply to a visitor who vent- ured to catechise him on his death-bed, he is reported
MONTALEMBERT
525
MONTANI
to have given in his unconditional adhesion to what confessedly he did not understand. "And God does not ask me to understand. He asks me to submit my will and intelligence, and / tcill do so." This concession even failed to satisfy Eome. The atonement was not sufficient for the crime he had committed ; and the highest tribute of ecclesiastical respect which the Church accords to a faithful son was denied to his memorj' ; to the memory of him who had devoted his whole life to her cause, who had dared impossibilities for her sake, who had given up to her what was meant for mankind, and thereby abdicated that place among practical statesmen and legislators which, apart from her blighting influence, his birth, his personal gifts, his high and rare quality of intellect, his eloquence, his elevation of purpose, his nobilit}- of mind and char- acter, must have won for him (comp. Italian corre- spondence of the N. Y. Tribune, under date of March 25, 1870). No wonder that we are told by the Tiib- une correspondent that "the feelings awakened in so- ciety were very strong both among the clergy and the laity, one of the former, a bishop, saj'ing, ' I would have gone to Paris to attend a service,' and another, speaking of prohibition, observed, 'Ce n'est pas un crime, mais c'est une fiiute.' " And well might the Tr'ihwie editorial add that "count de Montalembert filled too large a space in the esteem and admiration of his co-religionists, and of the political and literary world, not to be accorded a special chapter of remem- brance."