Imágenes de páginas

ion. Think you these men do not see and feel that our only salvation is in the institution of the spiritual order, in an organic representation of it, distinct from the political organization, independent of the national authority, which is secular, and superior to it? No representation of the spiritual order within and confined to the nation will suffice. It must be one and catholic, above and over all nations; and, moreover, it must be a divinely constituted and divinely protected and assisted organization, not a mere human device or contrivance. Such an organization the Church claims to be, and such a Church, governed by the Sovereign Pontiff, the real Vicar of Christ on earth, is precisely what we want. The whole thinking portion of the American people, the non-Catholic full as much as the Catholic portion, to say the least, feel this, and in their confidential conversations acknowledge it. We therefore must believe that Dr. M'Clintock is mistaken in his conviction, that to prove that the Church claims the independence and supremacy we assert for her, is to insure her rejection by the American people. We believe, on the contrary, that it would in a certain sense recommend her to their respectful consideration; for it is precisely what they would naturally expect her to claim, and what, if they are to accept her as God's Church, they would wish her to possess, since it is that which they more especially feel the want of.

Dr. M'Clintock's implied objection is not well taken. The great body of the American people are unquestionably strongly opposed to the Catholic Church,-have an almost invincible repugnance to her, are in fact as anti-Catholic as any people on the globe; but there is not one among them who would deliberately argue that she cannot be the Church of God, because she asserts her independence and supremacy as the representative of the spiritual order; for every one feels in his inmost heart that, if such representative, she must be in relation to the secular order independent and supreme, and therefore it is that the Gallican explanations gain so little credit with them. Reason and common sense tell them this. We do not need revelation to teach us that the temporal is subordinate to the spiritual, for it is a simple dictate of natural reason; nor do the American people fear the independence and spiritual supremacy of the Church, in case she is God's Church,

founded by him, and protected and assisted by the indwelling Holy Ghost, for they have sense enough to perceive that she would then be divinely commissioned, and that God, who cannot countenance error or injustice, would vouch for her, and himself take care that, as a faithful and obedient spouse, she should always do the will of her lord. God would himself be sponsor for her, go, so to speak, security for her, and that is security enough for any reasonable man. The real objection lies further back. The doubt or disbelief is as to her being the Church of God, instituted and sustained by him as the representative of the spiritual order on earth. Satisfied on this point, they would have no difficulty in yielding all the rest, because then all the rest would appear to them just and desirable, -precisely what they see to be necessary.

It does not enter into our present purpose to discuss the question as to the divine origin and constitution of the Church. That has been done sufficiently in the pages of this Review. But at the very lowest, her claim to be God's Church is as good as that of any of the sects. They are all confessedly of human origin, founded either by individuals or by states, acting without any divine commission. Yet they all claim each for itself to represent the spiritual order, and seek to be independent and supreme, wherever they are not practically repressed by the secular authority, tyrannically exercised as they must regard it. Why then should the power we assert be more dangerous in her hands than in theirs? Because in her hands it may be efficient, while in theirs it must always be practically inefficient. Whoever heard a man objecting to a power he demands on the ground of its efficiency, and defending it only on the ground of its practical inefficiency? The Presbyterian sect claims all the independence and supremacy for itself before the secular power that we claim for the Catholic Church. Will the Presbyterian step forward and argue that his sect is to be accepted, and our Church rejected, because it can never practically assert its claim, while she can practically assert hers? This would be to stultify himself. Other things being equal, he should infer directly the contrary. A power incapable of serving a practical purpose is as good as none at all: and a power whose practical efficiency would be dangerous, is not and cannot be legitimate, and ought never to be asserted at all,



The Presbyterian either believes the power he claims for his sect a power that ought to be practically efficient, or he does not. If he does not, he condemns his sect for asserting it; if he does, he equally condemns it in asserting its practical inefficiency.

But one thing we may remark as not ill adapted to allay the fears of non-Catholics. We suppose it is the common doctrine of our countrymen, that power is a trust, and may be forfeited by abuse; therefore that there may arise cases in which princes may be justly deposed, and subjects released from their oath or obligation of fealty. Now we claim to have read history, both as a Catholic and as a Protestant, with at least ordinary diligence, and we venture to assert that in no instance in the contests between the two powers have the secular authorities been in the right and the Sovereign Pontiff in the wrong. Whatever may or may not be said of their title, the Sovereign Pontiffs have invariably used their power on the side of justice, and never have they deposed a prince who did not for his tyranny, his oppressions, his frightful iniquities, deserve to be deposed. They whom they struck were moral monsters, and the cause for which they struck was that of religion, virtue, and innocence. Those emperors of Germany and those kings of France and England against whom the Popes had to exert all their apostolic authority, were not meek, peaceful, wise, and just sovereigns, seeking only the common good of their subjects; they were licentious tyrants, cruel oppressors, for whom no right was sacred, no virtue a protection. They were not patriotic monarchs, seeking to defend their crowns against the arrogance of pontiffs and the insolence of churchmen, as their unscrupulous defenders and traducers of the Popes would persuade us; but insolent and ambitious seculars, seeking to usurp the rights of the spiritual order, and to make themselves popes as well as princes, to absorb the spiritual order in the temporal, so as to be able to outrage and oppress the souls as well as the bodies of their subjects. All who have read history with any degree of honesty and discernment now know it, and none but the ignorant or the uncandid pretend to the contrary.

If during eighteen hundred years the Popes have never encroached on the just rights of the secular authority, have been in no case guilty of injustice to the representatives of

the temporal order, what reason have you to fear that they will change hereafter ? You agree at least, we believe, that the Church does not change, and that the policy once adopted is the policy she always pursues. The past is a sufficient pledge of the future. True, she asserts the independence and supremacy of the spiritual order, and so do you; true, she asserts the supremacy of the law of God for princes and states as well as for individuals and subjects, and so do you, when you do not turn political atheists; true, she seeks by all the means in her power to maintain the supremacy of that law in the practical government of society, and so do you, if you have any reverence for God or respect for morality; true, she aims to do, and where her action is free does do effectually, what every sect professes to have at heart; but this is a reason why you should love her and give her your confidence, not why you should distrust and oppose her. With her, religion, order, liberty, justice, may be maintained in our republic, and without her they cannot. Are the American people so blind, so bereft of common sense, as to fear her, because she is fitted to accomplish their most ardent wishes and the purest and holiest desires of their hearts?

It is not very wise, in opposing a church we happen to dislike, to deny the only principles on which we can defend the one we like. We are not a Protestant, but we will go as far as any Protestant in asserting the freedom and independence of the sects before the secular authority. We cannot in our horror of them consent to throw doubt on the great principles we plead in our own defence. As long as they do not trample on the equal rights of others, as long as they do nothing to disturb the public peace, we will maintain their freedom before the state, and deny in their case as much as in our own the right of the secular authority to interfere with them. It is madness to deny the freedom and supremacy of the spiritual order for the sake of opposing Catholicity. The American people may allege that the Church is not the divinely commissioned representative of the spiritual order on earth, and for that reason oppose her; but to oppose her because she asserts her independence and supremacy in face of the temporal power, the very thing she should do, and must do if she is what she professes to be, is to deny the independence and supremacy of the moral order, and to give up the world to the government of lawless passion or brute force.

[ocr errors]

That a portion of the American people, misled by their prejudices and influenced by the misrepresentations and calumnious charges brought against us by No-Popery publications, are violating against us some of their own most deeply cherished principles, and for which in their own case they would fight unto death, is unhappily too true. Of them we may truly say, "They know not what they do." The American mind at the present moment is all out of joint on religious matters, and they are like an army in the dark, thrown into confusion, and unable to distinguish friends from foes. They fire as often upon the former as the latter, yet at bottom they are a brave people and mean well. Their confusion will not last for ever, we hope, and they will recover themselves when the day, not far distant, begins to dawn. They will then see distinctly that society reposes on the maintenance of the independence and supremacy of the moral order in its practical government, and they will see that there can be no greater madness than that of warring against the only institution which is able to maintain that independence and supremacy. ligion and morality do not hold so high a rank with us, that we can afford to reject any help in their favor offered us. There is with us a sad want of high moral principle, of strict honesty, of conscientiousness. In public life we look to the expedient rather than to the right, and honor success rather than integrity and justice. In private life we abandon ourselves to the world, forget God and duty, and think only of multiplying sensible goods. We are becoming material, and rapidly falling into practical atheism. One half of our adult population are unconnected with any religious denomination, and probably a still larger proportion have grown up without having even been baptized. Everybody now sees that Protestantism can neither make nor keep a people practically religious. Lord Shaftesbury stated in the House of Lords not long since, that there are five millions of the adult population of England and Wales that never attend any place of religious worship. To a Christian mind, nothing can be more horrible.


All is not as we would wish it in Catholic countries. Owing to the jealousies of the governments, and to the power heresy and schism have given them to oppress the Church, she has not even there been able to do all her work. The tyranny of despots has restricted her freedom and lessened

« AnteriorContinuar »