We are not obliged to sound the Bishop of D—— on the score of orthodoxy. In the presence of such a soul we feel ourselves in no mood but respect. The conscience of the just man should be accepted on his word.
Moreover, certain natures being given, we admit the possible development of all beauties of human virtue in a belief that differs from our own. What did he think of this dogma, or of that mystery?
These secrets of the inner tribunal of the conscience are known only to the tomb, where souls enter naked. The point on which we are certain is, that the difficulties of faith never resolved themselves into hypocrisy in his case. No decay is possible to the diamond.
He believed to the extent of his powers. 'Credo in Patrem,' he often exclaimed. Moreover, he drew from good works that amount of satisfaction which suffices to the conscience, and which whispers to a man, 'Thou art with God!
' The point which we consider it our duty to note is, that outside of and beyond his faith, as it were, the Bishop possessed an excess of love.
It was in that quarter, quia multum amavit,—because he loved much—that he was regarded as vulnerable by 'serious men,' 'grave persons' and 'reasonable people'; favorite locutions of our sad world where egotism takes its word of command from pedantry. What was this excess of love?
It was a serene benevolence which overflowed men, as we have already pointed out, and which, on occasion, extended even to things. He lived without disdain. He was indulgent towards God’s creation. Every man, even the best, has within him a thoughtless harshness which he reserves for animals.
The Bishop of D—— had none of that harshness, which is peculiar to many priests, nevertheless.