ERROR
525
Bishop Challoner in London. He was appointed arch-
deacon and treasurer of the " Old Chapter "and held
these offices till his death.
Memoir of ErHngton in Husenbeth, Memoirs of Parkers pre- served (unpublished) at St. Wilfrid's College; Kirk, Biogra- phies of Eighteenth Century Catholics, written early in the nine- teenth oenturv (London. 190S); Husenbeth, History of Sedgley Park School (London, 1856); Gillow, Bibl. Diet. Eng. Cath., II, 178; Cooper in Diet. Nat. Biog., s. v.
Edwin Burton.
Error, reduplicatively regarded, is in one way or another the product of ignorance. But besides the lack of information which it implies, it adds the posi- tive element of a mental judgment, by which some- thing false is held to be true, or something true avouched to be false. The subject-matter of error so far as morals go, like that of the want of knowledge whence it proceeds, is either (1) the law itself, or (2) a fact, or circumstance of a fact. In the first instance, one is astray in affirming or denying the existence of a law, or at any rate the inclusion of some individual case under its operation. In the second, one is labour- ing under an equal misapprehension, but with regard to some fact or aspect of a fact. Thus, for example, a Catholic, who in some unaccountable way would per- suade himself that there was no law of abstinence on Friday, would be in error as to the law. If, although well aware of the precept of the Church, he is under the mistaken impression that a particular day, which happens to be Friday, is not Friday, he is in error as to the fact.
Taking account of the person in whom the error exists, it is said to be either vincible or invincible. Error is deemed to be invincible when, in spite of what is called moral diligence in the premises, it still per- sists. This may happen either because one has never been touched with any doubt as to the validity of one's stand, or as to the necessity of an inquiry, or it may be that one having, with full honesty of purpose, used such efforts as are demanded by the importance of the question at issue, is nevertheless unable to discover the truth. Much depends on the value to be attached to the phrase "moral diligence". It is not easy to state it in any set formula, unless it be this, that it is the diligence which prudent persons are accustomed to bring to bear upon the settlement of like matters. This notion may be set forth more in detail by the fol- lowing considerations: (1) The moral diligence re- quired does not mean that a person is to have recourse to every conceivable expedient. (2) It does imply that the endeavours made by an agent, to set himself riglit, should be such as are exacted by the seriousness of the business involved, as well as bear a proper ratio to his capacity and resources. Error is reckoned morally vincible as often as it is chargeable to the failure to exercise these ordinary and necessary precautions.
When an agent deliberately omits means calculated to dispel his error, or purposely fosters it, it is called affected. It is not so styled to indicate that it is sim- ulated, but rather to point out that the erroneous tenet has been studiously aimed at. When the error is the offspring of sheer unrelieved negligence, it is termed crass. The influence of error on moral re- sponsibility may be determined as follows. An act done in invincible error, whether the latter regard the fact or the law, is never impeachable as a sin. The reason is that, in this hypothesis, there is no knowledge of, and consequently no volition of, evil. On the con- trary, what is done in morally vincible error is es- teemed properl,y imputable to the agent. This is so, because the error itself is then of the agent's own choosing, and he is therefore accountable for its out- come. It is obvious, however, that the moral delin- quency which has its rise in vincible error will have various degrees of guilt, in proportion to the greater or lesser culpability of the error itself.
Slater, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); Bai^
LERiNi, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1898); Meyer, In^tU
tutiones Juris Naturaiis (Freiburg, 1885); Ojetti, Synopsis
lierum Moralium et Juris Pontificii (Prato, 1904).
Joseph F. Dei.any.
Erskine, Charles, Cardinal, b. at Rome, 13 Feb., 1739 ; d. at Paris, 20 March, ISIl. He was the son of Colin Erskine of the Erskine family, who were Earls of Kellie and Mar; his mother was Agatha Gigli of the noble family of Gigli of Anagni. He was educated by Cardinal Henry, Duke of York, at the Scots College, Rome, and was afterwards a successful advocate, be- coming Doctor of Laws in 1770. Pope Pius VI made him pro-auditor and Promoter of the Faith in 1782, also a domestic prelate, canon of St. Peter's, and dean of the college of consistorial advocates. He was or- dained subdeacon, 28 August, 1783. In October, 1793, he was sent as papal envoy to England. By his tact and ability Mgr. Erskine established excellent relations with the Court and the ministry, diminished the dissensions among Catholics, and avoided stirring up any anti-Catholic demonstration against himself. During his stay in London the pope named him audi- tor, and in 1795 gave him additional powers as envoy extraordinary. He left London in 1801 and returned to Rome, where in January, 1803, he was created cardinal. As a member of the Propaganda he was still useful to English Catholics, and was made pro- tector of Scotland. On the French invasion of Rome in 1808 he was made pro-secretary of Briefs, and was shut up in the Quirinal with the pope. When Pius VII was taken prisoner Erskine was allowed to go free, but his property was now lost and he would have been reduced to beggary if his Protestant relations had not made him an allowance. In 1809 Napoleon or- dered him to Paris and though ill he was forced from Rome in January, 1810. Shortly after his arrival in Paris he fell into a gradual decline and soon died. He was buried in the church of Saint-Genevieve, now the Pantheon.
Brady, Memoirs of Cardinal Erskine in Anglo-Roman Papers (London, 1890), from a MS. life by the cardinal's secre- tary, Del Medico, now in the Ghisiieri college, Rome; Ward- Dawn of the Catholic Revival (London, 1909).
Edwin Burton.
Erthal, Franz Ludwig von, Prince-Bishop of Wurzburg and Bamberg, b. at Lohr on the Main, 16 September, 1730; d. at Wiirzburg, 16 February, 1795. After studying theology at Mainz, Wurzburg, and Rome, and jurisprudence at Vienna he became presi- dent of the secular Government of Wurzbm-g in 1762. When he was sent in 1768 as Ambassador to Vienna to get the imperial investiture for Adam Friedrich, Count von Seinsheim, the Prince-Bishop of Wurzburg, Emperor Joseph II made him imperial pri\'y coun- cillor and inspector of the Imperial Chamber (Supreme Court of the empire) at Wetzlar. In 1776 he took part as imperial commissioner in the Diet of Ratisbon. He succeeded Adam Friedrich as Prince-Bishop of Wiirz- burg, 18 March, 1779, and as Prince-Bishop of Bam- berg on the following 12 April. His rule was a blessing for Church and State. Being himself deeply religious, he endeavoured to imbue his clergy and people with the spirit of true faith and piety. As far as the Church and his episcopal position permitted, he yielded to the rationalistic tendencies of the age, but was a stanch defender of papal rights against the adherents of Febronianism. As temporal ruler he never allowed personal considerations to outweigh the welfare of the people, and used his private means for the election and improvement of charitable institutions. At Bam- berg he founded a hospital which at th:it time was a model of its kind, and at A\'(irzl)urg he greatly im- proved and partly rebuilt the alrea<ly existing hospital of St. Julius. He improved the entire educational sys- tem, bettered the economic conditions of rural life and of the civil administration, and set the finances of his
