Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

to the female character, which we have never found in a Protestant, not brought up in some degree under Catholic influence. There is a purity, a delicacy, a sweetness, a gentleness, a grace, a dignity, about a Catholic lady, that you shall look in vain for in a purely Protestant lady, however high-born or wellbred. It is only in the Catholic lady that woman appears in all her loveliness, worth, and glory. It is Catholicity that has wrought out woman's emancipation, elevated her from her former menial condition, rescued her from the harem of the voluptuary, and made her the companion, and not unfrequently more than the companion, of man. Every Catholic daughter has a model of excellence in the Blessed Virgin, and not in vain from earliest infancy is she taught to lisp Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum; benedicta tu in mulieribus ; for the Holy Mother rains grace and sweetness on all who devote themselves to her honor and implore her protection.

The association with those who honor the Blessed Virgin, see in her the model of every female grace and every female virtue, and whom she honors with her special protection, is not without its chastening and hallowing influence, and the loveliest and the noblest Protestant ladies we have ever known are those who have been educated in Catholic schools. The good sisters have nothing to fear from the aspersions of Dr. Potts. Their pupils will speak for them, and constitute their defence. Yet, if Protestants do not like our schools, all we have to say is, let them go and institute better ones, if they can.

But enough. We have lingered too long upon this not very remarkable sermon; but as we have done little else than to make it the thread on which to string some observations, perhaps not wholly uncalled for nor inappropriate to the time and country, we hope we shall be forgiven. The Church may be assailed, will be assailed ; but we know it is founded on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is now firmly established in this country, and persecution will but cause it to thrive. Our countrymen may be grieved that it is so ; but it is useless for them to kick against the decrees of Almighty God. They have had an open field and fair play for Protestantism. Here Protestantism has had free scope, has reigned without a rival, and proved what she could do, and that her best is evil ; for the very good she boasts is not hers. A new day is dawning on this chosen land ; a new chapter is about to open in our history, - and the Church to assume her rightful position and influence. Ours shall yet become consecrated ground, and here the kingdom of God's dear Son shall be established. Our hills and valleys shall yet echo to the convent-bell. The cross shall be planted throughout the length and breadth of our land, and our happy sons and daughters shall drive away fear, shall drive away evil from our borders, with the echoes of their matin and vesper hymns. No matter who writes, who declaims, who intrigues, who is alarmed, or what leagues are formed, this is to be a Catholic country; and from Maine to Georgia, from the broad Atlantic to broader Pacific, the “clean Sacrifice " is to be offered daily for quick and dead.

Art. IV. – Methodist Quarterly Review for July, 1845.

Art. VII. Brownson's Quarterly Review, No. V. 1845.

The Methodist Quarterly Review for July, 1844, contained a paper on the literary policy of the Church of Rome; the avowed purpose of which was “to exhibit the proofs that the Church of Rome has ever waged a deadly warfare upon the liberty of the press, and upon literature ; and that her expurgatory and prohibitory policy has been continued to the present hour; not only against the truth of revelation, but equally against the truth in nature and in science, - both learning and religion having been the doomed victims of her perennial despotism.” To this paper, so far as concerned hostility to the press, literature, and science, we replied in our Review for last January. To this reply of ours the article before us is a rejoinder, attempting to make good the original charges, notwithstanding what we alleged against them.

In our reply we retorted the charge of unfriendliness to literature upon the Methodists themselves, who, we said, had originally manifested a great contempt for human science and learning, and cannot, in this country at least, boast of having made a single permanent contribution either to literature or science. The Review thinks this charge is not true, for one Mr. Elliot has written“ A Delineation of Roman Catholicism," which has even been republished in England. We confess, when we wrote, we had not heard of this work, and we have not yet seen it ; but we will engage beforehand that it is nothing VOL. III. NO. 1.


but a tissue of falsehood, misrepresentation, ignorance, impudence, sophistry, and malice; in the main, a mere repetition of what Protestants have been constantly repeating from the first, and which has been refuted time and again.

We are always safe in saying this of any work written by a Protestant against Catholicity, and, a fortiori, of a work written by a Methodist. Yet if the author or Reviewer will send us a copy of the work, and we find on actual examination that we are mistaken as to its real character, we will make all necessary retractations.

We stated that “ the Methodist press is, if we are rightly informed, under the strict surveillance of the bishops and elders."

The Reviewer says we are wrongly informed, for the bishops and elders have no power over it whatever. Yet he tells us the editors and agents are appointed by the Conferences, and are aided by the advice of a council (p 458). The Conferences are composed of “bishops and elders.” The bishops and elders, then, appoint the editors and agents, and we presume also the council of advice. We should think this were exercising some power over the press. Furthermore, in the intervals of the General Conference, these editors and agents are accountable, the Reviewer tells us, for their official conduct, “to the book committee, who have power, after due forms of trial and conviction, to displace them for malpractice." - p. 459. The book committee must be appointed by the particular Conferences, or by the General Conference, and in either case by the bishops and elders. The bishops and elders, then, through the book committee, exercise a strict surveillance over the Methodist press. The point on which we were intent was, that the Methodist press is not free, and we find, by the Reviewer's own admissions, it is less free than we had supposed. There is a power which appoints the editors and agents, furnishes them a council of advice, and then there is a tribunal to which they are accountable, before which they can be tried and convicted, and which has power to displace them for malpractice ; that is, should they publish what their masters disapprove. Surely, this is subjecting the press to a very stringent control, and we must still retain our opinion that the charge against the Catholic Church of hostility to a free press comes with an ill grace from a Methodist.

We stated, also, that “the Methodist people generally have great scruples about purchasing books, even of their own denomination, when not published by their own book society." The Reviewer says this is not true. We know from our own knowledge that it was true a few years since to some extent, and we know, and the Reviewer admits, that the Methodist elders do “urge their people to patronize their publishing establishments." - p. 459. It seems, however, we were wrong in speaking of their “ book society,” for they have no book society, but a “ book concern.” We acknowledge our mistake. The simple fact is, the Methodist denomination is itself, properly speaking, a huge society, and this society carries on a large book concern, and seeks as far as possible to monopolize the whole publishing business of its members.

We denied that the Catholic Church has ever been hostile to the liberty of the press, and asserted that the Reviewer had not adduced a single fact in proof of his charge. In the article before us, he appears to think we were wrong.

in this ;

for he adduced some extracts from the encyclical letter of the Holy Father, bearing date August. 16 (15), 1832, which goes far at least to prove it. We had, and now have, that letter before us, but it does not sustain the charge we denied. The Reviewer misquotes and perverts the sense of the passages he professes to give. The Holy Father does not declare, “ Liberty of conscience is an absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather a mad conceit," as the Reviewer asserts ; but that the opinion, that liberty is to be asserted and maintained for the conscience of each one, is absurd and erroneous, or rather a madness. Atque ex hoc putidissimo indifferentismi fonte absurda illa fluit ac erronea sententia, seu potius deliramentum, asserendam esse ac vindicandam cuilibet libertatem conscientiæ. What is condemned is not liberty of conscience, rightly understood, but that false view of the liberty of conscience which releases conscience from all obligation to conform to the truth, and which makes the conscience of each the sovereign arbiter in all cases whatsoever. Conscience is free, has all its rights, when subjected only to the will of God ; but that its freedom demands that it must in no instance be restrained, — that the individual, under plea of conscience, must be free to conform or not conform to the law of God, — free to run into any and every excess of error and delusion, to subvert all religious, social, and domestic order, is indeed an absurd and erroneous opinion, a real delusion, which every right-minded man must condemn. That the Holy Catholic Church does not allow liberty of conscience in this sense, which is not liberty, but license, we have never denied, and trust we never shall. The Church leaves the conscience all the liberty, that is, all the rights, it has by the law of God. If the Reviewer is not satisfied with this, he must bring his complaint against his Maker, not against the Church.

In fact, this notion of the unbounded license of conscience no man in his sober senses can undertake to defend. We remember to have read some years ago, in one of the Protestant missionary journals, of a pious Protestant convert among the heathen, who, on her dying bed, having but a poor appetite, thought she might, perhaps, eat the little finger of a very young child, if nicely cooked ! This her conscience permitted. Was the liberty of her conscience to be respected ? The conscience of the Anabaptists required them to run naked through the streets, and that of the early Quakers required them, especially the women, to go naked into the religious assemblies and prophesy. Was their conscience to be respected at the expense of public decency? There is, or at least was two or three years ago, a new religious sect in Western New York, who reject marriage, allow promiscuous sexual intercourse, and practise various obscene and filthy rites which we dare not name. Is the liberty of their conscience to be respected ? There was, too, Matthias, the famous New York prophet, whose queer conscience commanded him to claim his neighbour's property and his neighbour's wife as his own. Was the liberty of his conscience to be allowed ? We have a friend who is conscientiously opposed to paying taxes to the government. Shall the government respect his conscience, and exempt him from the payment of taxes? We have another friend who believes it decidedly wrong to use money. So, when he steps on board the steamboat at New York for Boston, he insists on having a free passage, because his conscience will not let him pay for it. Shall he go scot-free through the world ? One man is conscientiously opposed to the observance of Sunday ; do you respect the liberty of his conscience ? Another is opposed to the employment of chaplains by legislative assemblies; do you respect his liberty of conscience ? Not at all.

It is evident from what we have advanced, that some bounds are, and must be, set to the license of conscience, - that there must be somewhere a limit beyond which the plea of conscience is not to be entertained. But where is this limit? Where are these bounds ? Who shall determine ? The individual for himself ? No; for that would be to leave con

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »