"Septimæ collationis immane satis et infandum operationis studium

nunc sanctum nostrum adiit concilium; quod plerique ex sacerdotibus

et levitis, qui pro sacris ministeriis, et pietatis studio,

gubernationisque augmento sanctæ ecclesiæ deputati sunt officio,

malunt imitari turbam malorum, potius quam sanctorum patrum insistere

mandatis: ut ipsi etiam qui redimere debuerunt, venditiones facere

intendant, quos Christi sanguine præsciunt esse redemptos; ita

duntaxat, ut eorum dominio qui sunt empti in ritu Judaismo convertantur

oppressi, et fit execrabile commercium, ubi nitente Deo justum est

sanctum adesse conventum; quia majorum canones vetuerunt ut nullus

Judæorum conjugia vel servitia habere præsumat de Christianorum cœtu."

Here the Council eloquently reprimands the guilty; it continues:

"Si quis enim post hanc definitionem talia agere tentaverit, noverit se

extra ecclesiam fieri, et præsenti, et futuro judicio cum Juda simili

pœna percelli, dum modo Dominum denuo proditionis pretio malunt ad

iracundiam provocare." (Canon 7.)

§ VI.

_Pope St. Gregory the First gives freedom to two slaves of the Church

of Rome. Remarkable passage, in which this holy pope explains the

motives which induced the Christians to enfranchise their slaves._

"Cum Redemptor noster totius conditor creaturæ ad hoc propitiatus

humanam voluerit carnem assumere, ut divinitatis suæ gratia, diruto

quo tenebamur captivi vinculo servitutis, pristinæ nos restitueret

libertati; salubriter agiter, si homines quos ab initio natura creavit

liberos et protulit, et jus gentium jugo substituit servitutis, in

ea natura in qua nati fuerant, manumittentis beneficio, libertati

reddantur. Atque ideo pietatis intuitu, et hujus rei consideratione

permoti, vos Montanam atque Thomam famulos sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ, cui

Deo adjutore deservimus, liberos ex hac die civesque Romanos efficimus,

omneque vestrum vobis relaxamus servitutis peculium." (S. Greg. l. v.

ep. 12.)

_Bishops are directed to respect the liberty of those who have been

enfranchised by their predecessors. Mention is made of the power given

to Bishops to free their slaves who deserve well, and the sum is fixed

which they may give them to aid them in living._

(Concilium Agathense, anno 506.)

"Sane si quos de servis ecclesiæ benemeritos sibi episcopus libertate

donaverit, collatam libertatem a successoribus placuit custodiri, cum

hoc quod eis manumissor in libertate contulerit, quod tamen jubemus

viginti solidorum numerum, et modum in terrula, vineola, vel hospitiolo

tenere. Quod amplius datum fuerit, post manumissoris mortem ecclesia

revocabit." (Canon 7.)

_What has been mortgaged or alienated from the property of the Church

by a Bishop who has left nothing of his own, must be restored; but

enfranchised slaves are excepted from this rule: they shall preserve

their liberty._

(Concilium Aurelianense quartum, anno 541.)

"Ut episcopus qui de facultate propria ecclesiæ nihil relinquit, de

ecclesiæ facultate si quid aliter quam canones eloquunter obligaverit,

vendiderit, aut distraxerit, ad ecclesiam revocetur. Sane si de servis

ecclesiæ libertos fecerit numero competenti, in ingenuitate permaneant,

ita ut ab officio ecclesiæ non recedant." (Canon 9.)

An English Council ordains that, at the death of each Bishop, all his

English slaves shall be freed. The solemnization of the obsequies is

regulated; to terminate the funeral ceremonies, each Bishop and abbot

shall enfranchise three slaves, by giving them each three solidi.

(Synodus Cellichytensis, anno 816.)

"Decimo jubetur, et hoc firmiter statuimus asservandum, tam in nostris

diebus, quamque etiam futuris temporibus, omnibus successoribus

nostris qui post nos illis sedibus ordinentur quibus ordinati sumus:

ut quandocumque aliquis ex numero episcoporum migraverit de sæculo,

hoc pro anima illius præcipimus, ex substantia uniuscumque rei

decimam partem dividere, ac distribuere pauperibus in eleemosynam,

sive in pecoribus, et armentis, seu de ovibus et porcis, vel etiam in

cellariis, _nec non omnem hominem Anglicum liberare, qui in diebus suis

sit servituti subjectus_, ut per illud sui proprii laboris fructum

retributionis percipere mereatur, et indulgentiam peccatorum. Nec

ullatenus ab aliqua persona huic capitulo contradicatur, sed magis,

prout condecet, a successoribus augeatur, et ejus memoria semper in

posterum per universas ecclesias nostræ ditioni subjectas cum Dei

laudibus habeatur et honoretur. Prorsus orationes et eleemosynas quæ

inter nos specialiter condictam habemus, id est, ut statim per singulas

parochias in singulis quibusque ecclesiis, pulsato signo, omnis

famulorum Dei cœtus ad basilicam conveniant, ibique pariter XXX psalmos

pro defuncti animæ decantent. Et postea unusquisque antistes et abbas

sexcentos psalmos, et centum viginti missas celebrare faciat, _et tres

homines liberet et eorum cuilibet tres solidos distribuat_." (Canon 10.)

_A curious document, which shows the generous resolution made by the

Council of Armagh in Ireland, to give liberty to all the English

slaves._

(Concilium Ardamachiense in Hibernia celebratum, anno 1171: ex Giraldo

Cambrensi, cap. xxviii. Hiberniæ expugnatæ.)

"His completis convocato apud Ardamachiam totius Hiberniæ clero, et

super advenarum in insulam adventu tractato diutius et deliberato,

tandem communis omnium in hoc sententia resedit: propter peccata

scilicet populi sui, eoque præcipue quod Anglos olim, tam a

mercatoribus, quam prædonibus atque piratis, emere passim, et in

servitutem redigere consueverant, divinæ censura vindictæ hoc eis

incommodum accidisse, ut et ipsi quoque ab eadem gente in servitutem

vice reciproca jam redigantur. Anglorum namque populus adhuc integro

eorum regno, communi gentis vitio, liberos suos venales exponere, et

priusquam inopiam ullam aut inediam sustinerent, filios proprios et

cognatos in Hiberniam vendere consueverant. Unde et probabiliter credi

potest, sicut venditores olim, ita et emptores, tam enormi delicto juga

servitutis jam meruisse. Decretum est itaque in prædicto concilio,

et cum universitatis consensu publice statutum, ut Angli ubique

per insulam, servitutis vinculo mancipati, in pristinam revocentur

libertatem."

It is thus that religious ideas influence and soften the ferocious

manners of nations. When a public calamity occurs, they immediately

find its cause in the divine anger, justly excited by the traffic which

the Irish carried on by buying English slaves of merchants, robbers,

and pirates. It is not less curious to learn, that at that time the

English were barbarous enough to sell their children and relations,

like the Africans of our days. This frightful custom must have been

pretty general, as we read in the passage quoted, that it was the

common vice of those nations: _communi gentis vitio_. This makes us

better understand the necessity of a regulation inserted above, that

of the Council of London, held in 1102, which proscribes this infamous

traffic in men.

_It is forbidden to change the slaves of the Church for other slaves,

unless the exchange procured their liberty._

(Ex concilio apud Sylvanectum, anno 864.)

"Mancipia ecclesiastica, nisi ad libertatem non convenit commutari;

videlicet ut mancipia, quæ pro ecclesiastico homine dabuntur, in

ecclesiæ servitute permaneant, et ecclesiasticus homo, qui commutatur,

fruatur perpetua libertate. Quod enim semel Deo consecratum est, ad

humanos usus transferri non decet." (V. Decret. Greg. IX., l. iii. tit.

19, cap. 3.)

_A Canon containing the same regulation as the preceding; and whence,

moreover, it appears, that the faithful, for the salvation of their

souls, were accustomed to offer their slaves to God and the Saints._

(Ex eodem, anno 864.)

"Injustum videtur et impium, ut mancipia, quæ fideles Deo et sanctis

ejus pro remedio animæ suæ consecrarunt, cujuscumque muneris mancipio,

vel commutationis commercio iterum in servitutem secularium redigantur,

cum canonica auctoritas servos tantummodo permittat distrahi fugitives.

Et ideo ecclesiarum rectores summopere caveant, ne eleemosyna unius,

alterius peccatum fiat. Et est absurdum, ut ab ecclesiastica dignitate

servus discedens, humanæ sit obnoxius servituti." (Ibid. cap. 4.)

_Freedom shall be granted to slaves who wish to embrace the monastic

state, yet without neglecting useful precautions to ascertain the

reality of their vocation._

(Concilium Romanum sub S. Gregorio I., anno 597.)

"Multos de ecclesiastica seu sæculari familia, novimus ad omnipotentis

Dei servitium festinare, ut ab humana servitute liberi in divino

servitio valeant familiarius in monasteriis conversari, quos si passim

dimittimus, omnibus fugiendi ecclesiastici juris dominium occasionem

præbemus: si vero festinantes ad omnipotentis Dei servitium, incaute

retinemus, illi invenimur negare quædam qui dedit omnia. Unde necesse

est, ut quisquis ex juris ecclesiastici vel sæcularis militiæ servitute

ad Dei servitium converti desiderat, probetur prius in laico habitu

constitutus: et si mores ejus atque conversatio bona desiderio ejus

testimonium ferunt, absque retractatione servire in monasterio

omnipotenti Domino permittatur, ut ab humano servitio liber recedat,

qui in divino obsequio districtiorem appetit servitutem." (S. Greg.

epist. 44. lib. iv).

_The abuse of ordaining slaves without the consent of their masters

had spread; this abuse is checked._

(Ex epistolis Gelasii Papæ.)

"Ex antiquis regulis et novella synodali explanatione comprehensum est,

personas obnoxias servituti, cingulo cœlestis militiæ non præcingi. Sed

nescio utrum ignorantia an voluntate rapiamini, _ita ut ex hac causa

nullus pene Episcoporum videatur extorris_. Ita enim nos frequens et

plurimorum querela nos circumstrepit, ut ex hac parte nihil penitus

putetur constitutum." (Distin. 54. c. 9.)

"_Frequens equidem, et assidua nos querela, circumstrepit_ de his

pontificibus, qui nec antiquas regulas nec decreta nostra noviter

directa cogitantes, obnoxias possessionibus obligatasque personas,

venientes ad clericalis officii cingulum non recusant." (Ibid. c. 10.)

"Actores siquidem filiæ nostræ illustris et magnificæ feminæ, Maximæ,

petitorii nobis insinuatione conquesti sunt, Sylvestrum atque Candidum,

originarios suos, contra constitutiones, quæ supradictæ sunt, et

contradictione præeunte a Lucerino Pontifice diaconos ordinatos." (Ibid

c. 11.)

"_Generalis etiam querelæ vitanda præsumptio est, qua propemodum

causantur universi_, passim servos et originarios, dominorum jura,

possessionumque fugientes, sub religiosæ conversationis obtentu,

vel ad monasteria sese conferre, vel ad ecclesiasticum famulatum,

conniventibus quippe præsulibus, indifferenter admitti. Quæ modis

omnibus est amovenda pernicies, ne per Christiani nominis institutum

aut aliena pervadi, aut publica videatur disciplina subverti." (Ibid.

c. 12.)

_The parish priests are allowed to choose some clerics from the slaves

of the Church._

(Concilium Emeritense, anno 666.)

"Quidquid unanimiter digne disponitur in sancta Dei ecclesia,

necessarium est ut a parochitanis presbyteris custoditum maneat. Sunt

enim nonnulli, qui ecclesiarum suarum res ad plenitudinem habent, et

sollicitudo illis nulla est habendi clericos, cum quibus omnipotenti

Deo laudum debita persolvant officia. Proinde instituit hæc sancta

synodus, ut omnes parochitani presbyteri, juxta ut in rebus sibi a Deo

creditis sentiunt habere virtutem, de ecclesiæ suæ familia clericos

sibi faciant; quos per bonam voluntatem ita nutriant, ut et officium

sanctum digne paragant, et ad servitium suum aptos eos habeant. Hi

etiam victum et vestitum dispensatione presbyteri merebuntur, et domino

et presbytero suo, atque utilitati ecclesiæ fideles esse debent. Quod

si inutiles apparuerint ut culpa patuerit, correptione disciplinæ

feriantur; si quis presbyterorum hanc sententiam minime custodierit, et

non adimpleverit, ab episcopo suo corrigatur: ut plenissime custodiat,

quod digne jubetur." (Canon 18.)

_It is prescribed to the Bishops to confer liberty on the slaves of

the Church before they admit them into the clerical body._

(Concilium Toletanum nonum, anno 655.)

"Qui ex familiis ecclesiæ servituri devocantur in clerum ab episcopis

suis, necesse est, ut libertatis percipiant donum: et si honestæ vitæ

claruerint meritis, tunc demum majoribus fungantur officiis." (Canon

11.)

_It is allowed to ordain the slaves of the Church, liberty having been

previously conferred on them._

(Concilium quartem Toletanum, anno 633.)

"De familiis ecclesiæ constituere presbyteros ut diaconos per parochias

liceat; quos tamen vitæ rectitudo et probitas morum commendat: ea

tamen ratione, _ut antea manumissi libertatem status sui percipiant_,

et denuo ad ecclesiasticos honores succedant; irreligiosum est enim

obligatos existere servituti, qui sacri ordinis suscipiunt dignitatem."

§ VII.

We have shown in the text by what means, with what wisdom and

perseverance Christianity abolished slavery in the ancient world;

Christian and Catholic Europe was free at the time when Protestantism

appeared. Let us now see what Catholicity has done in modern times,

with respect to slaves in other parts of the world. We can present to

our readers in one document, which is the evidence of the ideas and

feelings of the Sovereign Pontiff Gregory XVI., an interesting history

of the solicitude of the Roman See in favor of the slaves of the whole

universe. I mean the apostolical letters published at Rome, November

3, 1839, against the slave-trade; and I recommend the perusal of them.

It will be there seen, in the most authentic and decisive manner, that

the Catholic Church, on this important subject of slavery, has always

showed, and shows still, the most lively spirit of charity, without in

the least offending against justice, or for a moment departing from the

path of prudence.

"_Gregorius P. P._ XVI. _ad futuram rei memoriam_.

"Raised to the supreme degree of the apostolical dignity, and filling,

although without any merit on our part, the place of Jesus Christ, the

Son of God, who, by the excess of His charity, has deigned to become

man, and die for the redemption of the world; we consider that it

belongs to our pastoral solicitude to exert all our efforts to prevent

Christians from engaging in the trade in blacks or any other men,

whoever they may be.

"As soon as the light of the Gospel began to spread, the unfortunate

men who fell into the hard fate of slavery during the numerous wars

of that period, felt their condition improved; for the apostles,

inspired by the Spirit of God, on the one hand, taught slaves to obey

their earthly masters, as Jesus Christ Himself, and to be resigned

from the bottom of their heart to the will of God; but, on the other,

they commanded masters to behave well to their slaves, to grant them

what was just and equitable, and not to treat them with anger, knowing

that the Lord of both is in heaven, and that with Him there is no

distinction of persons.

"The law of the Gospel having very soon universally and fundamentally

ordained sincere charity towards all, and the Lord Jesus having

declared that He would regard as done or refused to Himself all the

acts of beneficence and mercy done or refused to the poor and little

ones--it naturally followed that Christians not only regarded their

slaves as brethren, above all when they were become Christians, but

that they were more inclined to give liberty to those who rendered

themselves worthy of it. This usually took place particularly on the

solemn feasts of Easter, as St. Gregory of Nyssa relates. There were

even found some who, inflamed with more ardent charity, _embraced

slavery for the redemption of their brethren_; and an apostolic man,

our predecessor, Pope Gregory I., of sacred memory, attests that he

had known a great many who performed this work of mercy. Wherefore

the darkness of Pagan superstition being entirely dissipated in the

progress of time, and the manners of the most barbarous nations being

softened,--thanks to the benefit of faith working by charity,--things

advanced so far, that for many centuries there have been no slaves

among the greater part of Christian nations. Yet (we say it with

profound sorrow) men have been since found, even among Christians, who,

shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, have not hesitated

to reduce into slavery, in distant countries, Indians, Negroes, and

other unfortunate races; or to assist in this scandalous crime, by

instituting and organizing a traffic in these unfortunate beings, who

had been loaded with chains by others. A great number of the Roman

Pontiffs, our predecessors of glorious memory, have not forgotten to

stigmatize, throughout the extent of their jurisdiction, the conduct

of these men as injurious to their salvation, and disgraceful to the

Christian name; for they clearly saw that it was one of the causes

which tended most powerfully to make infidel nations continue in their

hatred to the true religion.

"This was the object of the apostolical letters of Paul III., of the

29th of May, 1537, addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo,

under the ring of the fisherman, and other letters, much more copious,

of Urban VIII., of the 22d April, 1639, addressed to the collector of

the rights of the Apostolic Chamber in Portugal,--letters, in which

the most severe censures are cast upon those who venture to reduce the

inhabitants of the East or West Indies into slavery, buy, sell, give,

or exchange them, separate them from their wives and children, strip

them of their property, take or send them into strange places, or

deprive them of their liberty in any way; to retain them in slavery;

or aid, counsel, succor, or favor those who do these things under any

color or pretence whatever; or preach or teach that this is lawful,

and, in fine, co-operate therewith in any way whatever. Benedict XIV.

has since confirmed and renewed these pontifical ordinances before

mentioned by new apostolical letters to the Bishops of Brazil and some

other countries, dated the 20th December, 1741, by means of which he

calls forth the solicitude of the Bishops for the same purpose. A

long time before, another of our more ancient predecessors, Pius II.,

whose pontificate saw the empire of the Portuguese extended in Guinea

and in the country of the blacks, addressed letters, dated the 7th of

October, 1482, to the Bishop of Ruvo, who was ready to depart for those

countries: in these letters he did not confine himself to giving to

this prelate the means requisite for exercising the sacred ministry

in those countries with the greatest fruit, but he took occasion very

severely to blame the conduct of those who reduced the neophytes into

slavery. In fine, in our days, Pius VII., animated by the same spirit

of charity and religion as his predecessors, zealously interposed his

good offices with men of authority for the entire abolition of the

slave-trade among Christians.

"These ordinances, and this solicitude of our predecessors, have

availed not a little, with the aid of God, in defending the Indians,

and other nations who have just been mentioned, against the barbarity

of conquest, and the cupidity of Christian merchants; but the Holy See

is far from being able to boast of the complete success of its efforts

and zeal, for, if the slave-trade has been partially abolished, it

is still carried on by a great many Christians. Wherefore, desiring

to remove such a disgrace from all Christian countries, after having

maturely considered the matter with many of our venerable brethren, the

Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, assembled in Council, following

the example of our predecessors, by virtue of the apostolic office,

we warn and admonish in the Lord all Christians, of whatever condition

they may be, and enjoin upon them that, for the future, no one shall

venture unjustly to oppress the Indians, Negroes, or other men, whoever

they may be; to strip them of their property or reduce them into

servitude: or give aid or support to those who commit such excesses, or

carry on that infamous traffic, by which the blacks, as if they were

not men, but mere impure animals, reduced like them into servitude,

without any distinction, contrary to the laws of justice and humanity,

are bought, sold, and devoted to endure the hardest labors; and on

account of which dissensions are excited and almost continual wars are

fomented among nations by the allurements of gain offered to those who

first carry away the Negroes.

"Wherefore, by virtue of the apostolical authority, we condemn all

these things aforesaid, as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name;

and, by the same authority, we absolutely prohibit and interdict all

ecclesiastics and laymen from venturing to maintain that this traffic

in blacks is permitted, under any pretext or color whatsoever; or

to preach or teach in public or in private, in any way whatever,

anything, contrary to these apostolic letters. And in order that these

letters may come to the knowledge of all, and that no one may pretend

ignorance, we ordain and decree that they be published and posted

up, according to custom, by one of our officers, on the doors of the

basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, of the Apostolic Chancery, of

the Palace of Justice, of Monte Citorio, and at the Campo di Fiori.

Given at Rome, at St. Mary Major's, under the seal of the fisherman,

the 3d of November, 1839, the ninth year of our Pontificate.

LOUIS, CARDINAL LAMBRUSCHINI."

I again particularly invite attention to the document which I have just

inserted--to these letters which magnificently crown the united efforts

of the Church for the abolition of slavery. As the abolition of the

slave-trade--the object of a treaty recently made between the great

powers--is at this moment one of the affairs which occupy the chief

attention of Europe, it is proper to pause a few moments, to reflect on

the contents of the apostolic letters of the Sovereign Pontiff Gregory

XVI. Let us observe, in the first place, that in the year 1482, Pope

Pius II. addressed apostolical letters to the Bishop of Ruvo, about to

depart for the newly discovered countries--letters, in which he did not

exclusively confine himself to giving the prelate the powers necessary

to exercise his holy ministry with the greatest fruit in those

countries, but in which he takes occasion to censure very severely

the conduct of Christians who reduced the neophytes into slavery.

Exactly at the end of the fifteenth century, at the time when it may be

said that the Church gathering the last fruit of her long labors, at

length saw Europe emerge from the chaos in which the irruption of the

barbarians had plunged her; at the time when the social and political

institutions were developed with daily increasing ardor, and began to

form a regular and coherent body; at this moment the Church resumes

her secular contest with another barbarism which reappeared in distant

countries; she opposes the abuse of the superiority of strength and

intelligence, which the conquerors possessed over the conquered nations.

This fact alone proves that, for the true liberty and well-being of

nations, for the just pre-eminence of right over might, and for the

triumph of justice over force, the intelligence and refinement of

nations are not enough--religion also is required. In ancient times,

we see nations cultivated to the highest point commit unheard of

atrocities; and in modern times, Europeans, so proud of their knowledge

and advancement, introduce slavery among the unfortunate nations who

have fallen under their dominion. Now, who was the first to raise a

voice against such injustice--against such horrible barbarity? It was

not policy, which perhaps rejoiced to see its conquests consolidated

by slavery; it was not commerce which found in this infamous traffic

an easy means of making shameful but abundant profits; it was not

philosophy, which, fully explaining the doctrines of Plato and

Aristotle, would perhaps have seen without concern the resuscitation

of the degrading theory of _races born for slavery_; but it was the

Catholic religion, expressing herself by the mouth of the Vicar of

Jesus Christ.

It is certainly a consolatory spectacle for Catholics to see a Roman

Pontiff, four centuries ago, condemn what Europe, with all her

civilization and refinement, condemns only at the present day. Still,

Europe only does so with difficulty; and all those who take part in

this tardy condemnation are not exempt from the suspicion of being

actuated by motives of interest. No doubt the Roman Pontiff did not

effect all the good he intended; but doctrines do not remain sterile

when they emanate from a high quarter, whence, diffusing themselves

to great distances, they descend on persons who receive them with

veneration, if it were only on account of him who teaches them. The

conquering nations were then Christians, and sincere ones; it is

therefore indubitable, that the admonitions of the Pope, transmitted by

the mouths of Bishops and other priests, must have had very salutary

effects. If, in cases like this, where we see a measure taken against

an evil, the evil nevertheless resists and continues, we imagine, by a

grievous mistake, that the measure has been vain, and that its author

has produced no effect. It is one thing to extirpate, and another

to diminish an evil; and it cannot be doubted that, if the Bulls of

the Popes had not all the effect intended, they must nevertheless

have served to diminish the evil, by improving the lot of nations

fallen under the yoke. The evil prevented and avoided is not seen;

the preservative has hindered its existence: but the existing evil is

palpable--it affects us, it excites our regret, and we often forget the

gratitude due to the hand which has preserved us from greater evils.

How often is it thus with respect to religion! She cures many things,

but she prevents still more. If she takes possession of the heart of

man, it is in order to destroy there even the very roots of a thousand

evils.

Let us imagine the Europeans of the fifteenth century invading the East

and West Indies, without any check, guided only by the inspirations of

cupidity, and by the caprices of arbitrary power, full of the pride

of conquerors, and of the contempt with which the Indians must have

inspired them, on account of the inferiority of their knowledge, and

of their backwardness in civilization and refinement: what must have

happened? If, in spite of the incessant cries of religion, in spite of

the influence which she had on laws and manners, the conquered nations

have had so much to suffer, would not the evil have been carried to an

intolerable extent, without those powerful causes which incessantly

combated, prevented or diminished it? The conquered would have been

reduced into slavery _en masse_; they would have been condemned _en

masse_ to perpetual degradation; they would have been deprived even of

the hope of one day entering on the career of civilization.

If the conduct of Europeans at that time with respect to men of

other races--if the conduct of some nations of our own days is to be

deplored, it cannot be said at least that the Catholic religion has not

opposed such excesses with all her strength; it cannot be said that the

Head of the Church has ever allowed these evils to pass without raising

his voice to recall to mind the rights of men, to stigmatize injustice,

to excite abhorrence of cruelty, and energetically to plead the cause

of humanity, without distinction of races, climates, or colors.

Whence does Europe derive this lofty idea and this generous feeling,

which urge her to declare herself so strongly against the traffic in

men, and to demand the complete abolition of slavery in the colonies?

When posterity shall call to mind these glorious facts; when it shall

adopt them as marking a new era in the annals of civilization; when,

studying and analyzing the causes which have conducted European

legislation and manners to so high a pitch, and, passing over temporary

and unimportant motives, insignificant circumstances, and secondary

agents, it shall seek for the vital principle which impelled European

civilization towards so glorious an end, it will find that this

principle was Christianity; and if, desiring to fathom the question

more and more, it should inquire whether this was Christianity, under

a vague and general form--Christianity without authority--Christianity

without Catholicity--the answer of history will be this: Catholicity,

exclusively prevailing in Europe, abolished slavery among the European

races; she introduced the principle of the abolition of slavery into

European civilization, by showing practically, and in opposition to the

opinion of antiquity, that slavery was not necessary for society; and

she made it understood, that the sacred work of enfranchisement was the

foundation of all great and life-giving civilization. She has therefore

inoculated European civilization with the principle of the abolition

of slavery; it is owing to her that, wherever this civilization has

come into contact with slavery, it has been profoundly disturbed--an

evident proof that there were at the bottom two opposite elements, two

contending principles, which were compelled to struggle incessantly,

until the more powerful, noble, and fruitful prevailing, and reducing

the other under the yoke, in the end annihilated it. I will say

more: by searching whether facts really confirm this influence of

Catholicity, not only in all that concerns the civilization of Europe,

but also in the countries which Europeans have conquered two centuries

ago, in the East and West, we shall meet with Catholic Bishops and

priests working without intermission in improving the lot of colonial

slaves; we shall call to mind what is due to the Catholic missions; we

shall read and understand the apostolical letters of Pius II., issued

in 1482, and mentioned above; those of Paul III., in 1537; those of

Urban VIII., in 1639; those of Benedict XIV., in 1741; and those of

Gregory XVI., in 1839.

In these letters there is taught and defined all that has been or

can be said on this point in favor of humanity. We shall there find

blamed, condemned, and punished, all that European civilization has

at length resolved to condemn and punish; and when calling to mind

also that it was Pius VII., who, at the beginning of this century,

_zealously interposed his good offices with men in power for the

complete abolition of slavery among Christians_, we shall not be

able to avoid acknowledging and confessing that Catholicity has had

the principal share in this great work. It is she indeed who has

laid down the principle on which the work rests, who has established

the precedents which guide it, who has constantly proclaimed the

principles which have suggested it and has constantly condemned those

who have opposed it; it is she, in fine, who at all times has declared

open war against cruelty and cupidity,--the support and perpetual

motives for injustice and inhumanity. Let us hear the testimony of a

celebrated Protestant author, Robertson, the historian of America:

"From the time that ecclesiastics were sent as instructors into

America, they perceived that the rigor with which their countrymen

treated the natives rendered their ministry altogether fruitless. The

missionaries, in conformity with the mild spirit of that religion

which they were employed to publish, soon remonstrated against the

maxims of the planters with respect to the Americans, and condemned

the _repartimientos_, or distributions, by which they were given

up as slaves to their conquerors, as no less contrary to natural

justice and the precepts of Christianity, than to sound policy. The

Dominicans, to whom the instruction of the Americans was originally

committed, were the most vehement in attacking the _repartimientos_.

In the year 1511, Motesino, one of their most eminent preachers,

inveighed against this practice in the great church at St. Domingo,

with all the impetuosity of his natural eloquence. Don Diego Columbus,

the principal officers of the colony, and all the laymen who had

been his hearers, complained of the monk to his superiors; but they,

instead of condemning, applauded his doctrine, as equally pious and

seasonable. The Franciscans, influenced by the spirit of opposition

and rivalship which subsists between the two orders, discovered some

inclination to take part with the laity, and to espouse the defence of

the _repartimientos_. But as they could not with decency give their

approbation to a system of oppression so repugnant to the spirit of

religion, they endeavored to palliate what they could not justify,

and alleged in excuse for the conduct of their countrymen, that it

was impossible to carry on any improvement in the colony, unless the

Spaniards possessed such dominion over the natives, that they could

compel them to labor. The Dominicans, regardless of such political and

interested considerations, would not relax in any degree the rigor

of their sentiments, and even refused to absolve, or admit to the

sacrament, such of their countrymen as continued to hold the natives

in servitude. Both parties applied to the king for his decision in a

matter of such importance. Ferdinand empowered a committee of his Privy

Council, assisted by some of the most eminent civilians and divines in

Spain, to hear the deputies sent from Hispaniola in support of their

respective opinions. After a long discussion, the speculative point

in controversy was determined in favor of the Dominicans; the Indians

were declared to be a free people, entitled to all the natural rights

of man; but notwithstanding this decision, the _repartimientos_ were

continued upon their ancient footing. As this determination admitted

the principle upon which the Dominicans founded their opinion, they

renewed their efforts to obtain relief for the Indians with additional

boldness and zeal. At length, in order to quiet the colony, which was

alarmed by their remonstrances and censures, Ferdinand issued a decree

of his Privy Council (1513), declaring that after mature consideration

of the apostolic Bull, and other titles by which the Crown of Castile

claimed a right to its possessions, in the new world, the servitude of

the Indians was warranted both by the laws of God and man; that unless

they were subjected to the dominion of the Spaniards, and compelled

to reside under their inspection, it would be impossible to reclaim

them from idolatry, or to instruct them in the Christian faith; that

no further scruple ought to be entertained concerning the lawfulness

of the _repartimientos_, as the King and Council were willing to take

the charge of that upon their own consciences; and that therefore the

Dominicans, and monks of other religious orders, should abstain for

the future from those invectives which, from an excess of charitable

but ill-informed zeal, they had uttered against the practice. That

his intention of adhering to this decree might be fully understood,

Ferdinand conferred new grants of Indians upon several of his

courtiers. But in order that he might not seem altogether inattentive

to the rights of humanity, he published an edict in which he endeavored

to provide for the mild treatment of the Indians under the yoke to

which he subjected them; he regulated the nature of the work which they

should be required to perform; he prescribed the mode in which they

should be clothed and fed, and gave directions with respect to their

instruction in the principles of Christianity. But the Dominicans, who,

from their experience of what had passed, judged concerning the future,

soon perceived the inefficacy of those provisions, and foretold that,

as long as it was the interest of individuals to treat the Indians

with rigor, no public regulations would render their servitude mild

or tolerable. They considered it as vain to waste their own time and

strength in attempting to communicate the sublime truths to men whose

spirits were broken, and their faculties impaired by oppression. Some

of them, in despair, requested the permission of their superiors to

remove to the continent, and pursue the object of their mission among

such of the natives as were not hitherto corrupted by the example of

the Spaniards, or alienated by their cruelty from the Christian faith.

Such as remained in Hispaniola continued to remonstrate, with decent

firmness, against the servitude of the Indians.

"The violent operations of Albuquerque, the new distributor of

the Indians, revived the zeal of the Dominicans against the

_repartimientos_, and called forth an advocate for that oppressed

people who possessed all the courage, the talents, and the activity

requisite in supporting such a desperate cause. This was Bartholomew

de las Casas, a native of Seville, and one of the clergymen sent out

with Columbus in his second voyage to Hispaniola, in order to settle in

that Island. He early adopted the opinion prevalent among ecclesiastics

with respect to the unlawfulness of reducing the natives to servitude;

and that he might demonstrate the sincerity of his conviction, he

relinquished all the Indians who had fallen to his share in the

division of the inhabitants among their conquerors, declaring that he

should ever bewail his own misfortune and guilt, in having exercised

for a moment this impious dominion over his fellow-creatures. From

that time he became the avowed patron of the Indians; and by his bold

interpositions in their behalf, as well as by the respect due to his

abilities and character, he had often the merit of setting some bounds

to the excesses of his countrymen." (_History of America_, book 3.)

It would be too long to relate here the energetic efforts of De las

Casas in favor of the colonies of the new world; all know them--all

must know that, filled with zeal for the liberty of the Indians, he

conceived and undertook an attempt at civilization analogous to that

which was realized later, to the immortal honor of the Catholic clergy,

in Paraguay. If the efforts of De las Casas had not all the success

that might naturally have been expected, we find the cause of this

in the thousand passions with which history makes us acquainted, and

perhaps also in the impetuosity of this man, whose sublime zeal was not

always accompanied by the consummate prudence which the Church displays.

However this may be, Catholicity has completely accomplished her

mission of peace and love; without injustice or catastrophe, she

has broken the chains under which a large portion of the human

race groaned; and if it had been given her to prevail for some

time in Asia and Africa, she would have achieved their destruction

in the four quarters of the globe, by banishing the degradations

and the abominations introduced and established in those countries

by Mahometanism and idolatry. It is melancholy, no doubt, that

Christianity has not yet exercised over these latter countries all the

influence which would have been necessary to ameliorate the social

and political condition of those nations, by changing their ideas and

manners. But if we seek for the causes of this lamentable delay, we

certainly shall not find them in the conduct of Catholicity. This is

not the place to point out these causes; nevertheless, while reserving

the analysis and complete examination of this matter for another part

of the work, I will make the remark _en passant_, that Protestantism

may justly criminate itself for the obstacles which, during three

centuries, it has opposed to the universality and efficacy of the

Christian influence on infidel nations. These few words will suffice

here; we shall return to this important subject later.

NOTE 16, p. 131.

We can scarcely believe how far the ideas of the ancients went astray

with regard to the respect which is due to man. Can it be believed

that they went so far, as to regard the lives of all who could not be

useful to society as of no value? and yet nothing is more certain.

We might lament that this or that city had adopted a barbarous law;

that a ferocious custom was introduced among a people by the effect of

particular circumstances; yet as long as philosophy protested against

such attempts, human reason would have been unstained, and could not

have been accused without injustice of taking part in infamous attempts

at abortion or infanticide. But when we find crime defended and taught

by the most important philosophers of antiquity; when we see it triumph

in the minds of the most illustrious men, who, with fearful calmness

and serenity, prescribe the atrocities which we have named, we are

confounded, and our blood runs cold; we would fain shut our eyes, not

to see so much infamy thrown upon philosophy and human reason. Let us

hear Plato in his _Republic_, in that book in which he undertook to

collect all the theories in his opinion the most distinguished and

the best adapted to lead human society towards its _beau ideal_. This

is his scandalous language: "Oportet profecto secundum ea quæ supra

concessimus, optimos viros mulieribus optimis ut plurimum congredi:

deterrimos autem contra, deterrimis. Et illorem quidem prolem nutrire,

horum minime, si armentum excellentissimum sit futurum. Et hæc omnia

dum agantur, ab omnibus præterquam a principibus ignorari, si modo

armentum custodum debeat seditione carere." "Prope admodum;" "Very

good," replies another speaker. (_Plat. Rep._ l. v.)

Behold, then, the human race reduced to the condition of mere

brutes; in truth, the philosopher had reason to use the word flock

(_armentum_)! There is this difference, however, that magistrates

imbued with such feelings must have been more harsh towards their

subjects than a shepherd towards his flock. If the shepherd finds among

the lambs which have just been born a weak and lame one, he does not

kill it or allow it to die of hunger; he carries it to the sheep who

ought to nourish it, he caresses it to stop its cries.

But perhaps the expressions which we have just quoted escaped the

philosopher in a moment of inadvertence; perhaps the idea which they

reveal was only one of those sinister inspirations which glide into the

mind of a man, and pass away without leaving any more impression than

is made by a reptile moving through the grass. We wish it were so, for

the fame of Plato; but unhappily he returns to it so often, and insists

on the point with so systematic a coldness, that no means of justifying

him are left. "With respect," he says lower down, "to the children of

citizens of inferior rank, and even those of other citizens, if they

are born deformed, the magistrates shall hide them, as is proper,

in some secure place, which it shall be forbidden to reveal." "Yes,"

replies one of the interlocutors; "if we desire to preserve the race of

warriors in its purity."

Plato also lays down various rules with respect to the relations

of the two sexes; he speaks of the case in which the man and woman

shall have reached an advanced age: "Quando igitur jam mulieres et

viri ætatem generationi aptam egressi fuerint, licere viris dicemus,

cuicumque voluerint, præterquam filiæ atque matri et filiarum natis

matrisve majoribus: licere et mulieribus cuilibet, præterquam filio

atque patri, ac superioribus et inferioribus eorumdem. Cum vero hæc

omnia mandaverimus, interdicemus fœtum talem (si contigeret) edi et

in lucem produci. Si quid autem matrem parere coegerit, ita exponere

præcipiemus, quasi ei nulla nutritio sit."

Plato seems to have been very well pleased with his doctrine; for, in

the very book in which he writes what we have just seen, he lays down

the famous maxim, that the evils of states will never be remedied, that

societies will never be well governed, until philosophers shall become

kings, or kings become philosophers. God preserve us from seeing on the

throne a philosophy such as his! Moreover, his wish for the reign of

philosophy has been realized in modern times. What do I say? It has had

more than empire; it has been deified, and divine honors have been paid

to it in public temples. I do not believe, however, that the happy days

of the worship of reason are now much regretted.

The horrible doctrine which we have just seen in Plato was transmitted

with fidelity to future schools. Aristotle, who on so many points took

the liberty of departing from the doctrines of his master, did not

think of correcting those which regard abortion and infanticide. In

his _Politics_ he teaches the same crimes with the same calmness as

Plato: "In order," he says, "to avoid nourishing weak or lame children,

the law should direct them to be exposed or made away with." "Propter

multitudinem autem liberorum, ne plures sint quam expediat, si gentium

instituta et leges vetent procreata exponi, definitum esse oportet

procreandorum liberorum numerum. Quod si quibus inter se copulatis et

congressis, plures liberi, quam definitum sit, nascantur, priusquam

sensus et vita inseratur, abortus est fœtui inferendus." (_Polit._ l.

vii. c. 16.)

It will be seen how much reason I had to say that man, _as man_, was

esteemed as nothing among the ancients; that society entirely absorbed

him; that it claimed unjust rights over him, and regarded him as an

instrument to be used when of service, and which it had a right to

destroy.

We observe in the writings of the ancient philosophers, that they make

of society a kind of _whole_, consisting of individuals, as the mass

of iron consists of the atoms that compose it; they make of it a sort

of unity, to which all must be sacrificed; they have no consideration

for the sphere of individual liberty; they do not appear to dream

that the object of society is the good, the happiness of individuals

and families. According to them, this unity is the principal good,

with which nothing else can be compared; the greatest evil that can

happen is, that this unity should be broken--an evil which must be

avoided by all imaginable means. "Is not the worst evil of a state,"

says Plato, "that which divides it, and _makes many out of one_? and

is not the greatest excellence of a state, that which binds all its

parts together, and makes it _one_?" Relying on this principle, and

pursuing the development of his theory, he takes individuals and

families, and kneads them, as it were, in order to form them into ONE

compact whole. Thus, besides education and life in common, he wishes

also to have women and children in common; he considers it injurious

that there should be personal enjoyments or sufferings; he desires

that all should be common and social; he allows individuals to live,

think, feel, and act only as parts of a great whole. If you read his

_Republic_ with attention, and particularly the fifth book, you will

see that the prevailing idea of this philosopher is what we have just

explained. Let us hear Aristotle on the same point: "As the object of

society," he says, "is _one_, it is clear that the education of all

its members ought necessarily to be one and identical. Education ought

to be public, and not private; as things now are, each one takes care

of his children as he thinks proper, and teaches them as he pleases.

Each citizen is a particle of society, and the care to be given to

a particle ought naturally to extend to what the whole requires."

(_Polit._ l. viii. c. 1.) In order to explain to us what he means by

this common education, he concludes by quoting with honor the education

which was given at Sparta, which every one knows consisted in stifling

all feelings except a ferocious patriotism, the traits of which still

make us shudder.

With our ideas and customs, we do not know how to confine ourselves

to considering society in this way. Individuals among us are attached

to the social body, forming a part of it, but without losing their

own sphere--that of the family; and they preserve around them a vast

career, where they are allowed to exert themselves, without coming

into collision with the colossus of society. Nevertheless, patriotism

exists; but it is no longer a blind instinctive passion, urging man

on to the sacrifice, like a victim, with bandaged eyes, but it is no

reasonable, noble, and exalted feeling, which forms heroes like those

of Lepanto and Baylen; which converts peaceful citizens, like those

of Gyronna and Saragossa, into lions; which, as by an electric spark,

makes a whole people rise on a sudden without arms, and brave death

from the artillery of a numerous and disciplined army: such was Madrid,

following the sublime _Mourons_ of Daoiz and of Velarda.

I have already hinted, in the text, that society among the ancients

claimed the right of interfering in all that regards individuals.

I will add, that the thing went to a ridiculous extent. Who would

imagine that the law ought to interfere in the food of a woman who

was _enceinte_, or in the exercise which she should take every day?

This is what Aristotle gravely says: "It is necessary that women who

are _enceinte_ should take particular care of their bodies; that

they should avoid indulgence in luxury, and using food which is too

light and weak. The legislator easily attains his end by prescribing

and ordering them a daily walk, in order to go to honor and venerate

the gods, to whom it has been confided by fate to watch over the

formation of beings. Atque hoc facile assequitur scriptor legum, si

eis iter aliquod quotidianum ad cultum venerationemque deorum eorum,

quibus sorte obtigit, ut præsint gignendis animantibus, injunxerit ac

mandaverit." (_Polit._ l. vii. c. 16.)

The action of laws extended to every thing; it seems that, in certain

cases, even the tears of children could not escape this severity.

"Those," says Aristotle, "who, by means of laws, forbid children to cry

and weep, are wrong; cries and tears serve as exercise for children,

and assist them in growing; they are an effort of nature, which

relieves and invigorates those who are in pain." (_Polit._ l. vii. c.

17.)

These doctrines of the ancients--this manner of considering the

relations of individuals with society--very well explain how castes

and slavery could be regarded as natural among them. Who can be

astonished at seeing whole races deprived of liberty, or regarded as

incapable of partaking of the rights of other superior classes, when

we see generations of innocent beings condemned to death, and these

conscientious philosophers not having the slightest scruple with

respect to the legitimacy of so inhuman an act? It was not that these

philosophers had not happiness in view as the object of society; but

they had monstrous ideas with respect to the means of obtaining that

happiness.

NOTE 17, p. 146.

The reader will easily dispense with my entering into details on the

abject and shameful condition of women among the ancients, and in which

they still are among the moderns where Christianity does not prevail;

moreover, my pen would be checked every moment by strict laws of

modesty, if I were to attempt to represent the characteristic features

of this wretched picture. The _inversion_ of ideas was such, that we

hear men the most renowned for their gravity and moderation rave in

the most incredible manner on this point. We will lay aside hundreds

of examples which it would be easy to adduce; but who is ignorant of

the scandalous advice of the _sage_ Solon, with respect to the lending

of women for the purpose of improving the race? Who has not blushed to

read what the _divine_ Plato, in his _Republic_, says of the propriety

and manner of making women share in the public games? Let us throw

a veil over recollections so dishonourable to human wisdom. When

the chief legislators and sages so far forgot the first elements of

morality, and the most ordinary inspirations of nature, what must have

been the case with the vulgar? How fearfully true those words of the

sacred text which represent to us the nations deprived of the light of

Christianity as sitting _in darkness and in the shadow of death!_

There is nothing more fatal to woman, nothing more apt to degrade

her, than that which is injurious to modesty; and yet we see that

the unlimited power granted to man over woman contributed to this

degradation, and reduced her, among certain nations, to be nothing but

a slave. Losing sight of the manners of other nations, let us consider

those of the Romans for a moment. Among them the formula, _ubi tu

Cayus ego Caya_, seemed to indicate a subjection so slight, that it

might almost be called an equality; but in order to appreciate this

equality, it is enough to recollect that, at Rome, a husband could

put his wife to death by his own authority, and that not only in the

case of adultery, but for offences infinitely less serious. In the

time of Romulus, Egnacius Menecius was acquitted of a similar crime,

although his wife had done nothing more than drink wine from a cask.

These traits describe a nation, whatever importance you may besides

think proper to attach to the solicitude of the Romans to prevent their

matrons from becoming addicted to wine. When Cato directed an embrace,

as a proof of affection, among relations, for the purpose, as Pliny

relates, of ascertaining whether the women smelt of wine, _an temetum

olerent_, it is true he showed his strictness; but it was an unworthy

outrage offered to the honor of the women themselves whose virtue it

pretended to preserve. There are some remedies worse than the disease.

NOTE 18, p. 157.

The antichristian philosophy must have had considerable influence on

the desire to find among the barbarians the origin of the elevation

of the female character in Europe, and of some other principles of

our civilization. Indeed as soon as you discover the source of these

admirable qualities in the forests of Germany, Christianity is stripped

of a portion of its honors; and what was its own and peculiar glory

is divided among many. I will not deny that the Germans of Tacitus

are sufficiently poetical; but it is difficult to believe that the

real Germans were so to any extent. Some passages inserted in the text

add great force to our conjecture; but what appears to me eminently

calculated to dissipate all these illusions is, the history of the

invasion by the barbarians, above all that which has been written by

eye-witnesses. The picture, far from continuing poetical, then becomes

disgusting in the extreme. This interminable succession of nations

passes before the eyes of the reader, like an alarming vision in an

evil dream; and certainly the first idea which occurs to us at the

sight of this picture is, not to seek for any of the qualities of

modern civilization in these invading hordes; but the great difficulty

is, to know how this chaos has been reduced to order, and how it has

been possible to produce from such barbarism the noblest and most

brilliant civilization that has ever been seen on earth. Tacitus

appears to be an enthusiast; but Sidonius, who wrote at no great

distance from the barbarians, who saw them, and suffered from meeting

them, does not partake of this enthusiasm. "I find myself," he said,

"among long-haired nations, compelled to hear the German language,

and to applaud, at whatever cost, the song of the drunken Burgundian,

with hair plastered with rancid grease. _Happy your eyes who do not

see them; happy your ears who do not hear them?_" If space permitted,

it would be easy for me to accumulate a thousand passages which would

evidently show what the barbarians were, and what could be expected

from them in all respects. It is as clear as the light of day, that it

was the design of Providence to employ these nations to destroy the

Roman empire, and change the face of the world. The invaders seem to

have had a feeling of their terrible mission. They march, they advance,

they know not whither they go; but they know well that they go to

destroy. Attila called himself the scourge of God. The same barbarian

himself defined his formidable duty in these words: "_The star falls,

the sea is moved; I am the hammer of the earth._ Where my horse passes,

the grass never grows." Alaric, marching towards the capital of the

world, said: "_I cannot stop; there is some one urges me, who excites

me to sack Rome._" Genseric prepares a naval expedition; his troops

are on board, he himself embarks: no one knows the point towards which

he will direct his sails. The pilot approaches the barbarian, and asks

him; "_My lord, against what nations will you wage war?_" "_Against

those who have provoked the anger of God_," replies Genseric.

If Christianity, in the midst of this catastrophe, had not existed in

Europe, civilization would have been lost and annihilated, perhaps

forever. But a religion of light and love was sure to triumph over

ignorance and violence. Even during the times of the calamities of

the invasion, that religion prevented many disasters, owing to the

ascendency which it began to exercise over the barbarians; the most

critical moment being past, the conquerors having become in some degree

settled, she immediately employed a system so vast, so efficacious, so

decisive, that the conquerors found themselves conquered, not by arms,

but by charity. It was not in the power of the Church to prevent the

invasion; God had decreed it, and His decree must be accomplished. Thus

the pious monk who went to meet Alaric approaching Rome, could not stop

him on his march, because the barbarian answered him, that he could not

stop,--that there was some one who urged him on, and that he advanced

against his own will. But the Church awaited the barbarians after the

conquest, knowing that Providence would not abandon His own work, that

the hope of the future lot of nations was left in the hands of the

spouse of Jesus Christ; on this account does Alaric advance on Rome,

sack, and destroy it; but on a sudden, finding himself in presence of

religion, he stops, becomes mollified, and appoints the Churches of

St. Peter and St. Paul as places of refuge. A remarkable fact, and an

admirable symbol of the Christian religion preserving the universe from

total ruin.

NOTE 19, p. 165.

The great benefit conferred on modern society by the formation of

a pure and correct public conscience, would acquire extraordinary

value in our eyes, if we compared our moral ideas with those of all

other nations, ancient and modern; the result of such an examination

would be, to show in how lamentable a manner good principles become

corrupted, when they are confided to the reason of man. I will content

myself, however, with a few words on the ancients, in order to show how

correct I was in saying that our manners, however corrupt they may be,

would have appeared a model of morality and dignity to the heathens.

The temples consecrated to Venus in Babylon and Corinth are connected

with abominations such as to be even incomprehensible. Deified passion

required sacrifices worthy of it; a divinity without modesty required

the sacrifice of modesty; and the sacred name of Temple was applied

to asylums of the most unbridled licentiousness. There was not a veil

even for the greatest crimes. It is known how the daughters of Chypre

gained a dowry for their marriage; all have heard of the mysteries of

Adonis, Priapus, and other impure divinities. There are vices which,

as it were, want a name among the moderns; or if they have one, it is

accompanied by the recollection of a terrible chastisement inflicted on

some criminal cities. In reading the histories of antiquity descriptive

of the manners of their times, the book falls from our hands. On this

subject we must be content with these few hints, calculated to awaken

in the minds of our readers the recollection of what has a thousand

times excited their indignation in reading the history and studying the

literature of pagan antiquity. The author is compelled to be satisfied

with a recollection: he abstains from a description.

NOTE 20, p. 171.

It is now so common to exalt beyond measure the power of ideas, that

some persons will perhaps consider exaggerated what I have said with

respect to their want of power, not only to influence society, but even

to preserve themselves, while, remaining in the mere sphere of ideas,

they do not become realized in institutions, which are their organ, and

at the same time their rampart and defence.

I am very far, as I have clearly stated in the text, from denying or

calling in question what is called the power of ideas: I only mean to

show that, alone and by themselves, ideas have little power; and that

science, properly so called, as far as the organization of society is

concerned, is a much less important thing than is generally supposed.

This doctrine has an intimate connection with the system followed by

the Catholic Church, which, while constantly endeavoring to develop

the human mind by means of the propagation of the sciences, has

nevertheless assigned to them a secondary part in the regulation of

society. While religion has never been opposed to true science, never,

on the other hand, has she ceased to show a certain degree of mistrust

with respect to all that was the exclusive production of human thought;

and observe that this is one of the chief differences between religion

and the philosophy of the last age; or, we should rather say, it was

the cause of their violent antipathy. Religion did not condemn science;

on the contrary, she loved, protected, and encouraged it; but at the

same time she marked out its limits, warned it that it was blind on

some points, announced to it that it would be powerless in some of its

labors, and that in others its action would be destructive and fatal.

Philosophy, on the contrary, loudly proclaimed the sovereignty of

science, declared it to be all-powerful, and deified it; it attributed

to it strength and courage to change the face of the world, and wisdom

and foresight enough to work this change for the good of humanity. This

pride of knowledge, this deification of thought, is, if you observe

closely, the foundation of Protestant doctrine. All authority being

taken away, reason is the only competent judge, the intellect receives

directly and immediately from God all the light which is necessary.

This is the fundamental doctrine of Protestantism, that is to say, the

pride of the mind.

If we closely observe, even the triumph of revolutions has in no degree

nullified the wise anticipations of religion; and knowledge, properly

so called, instead of gaining any credit from this triumph, has

entirely lost what it had: there remains nothing of the revolutionary

knowledge; what remains is the effects of the revolution, the interests

created by it, the institutions which have arisen from those interests,

and which, since that time, have sought in the department of science

itself our principles to support them,--principles altogether different

from those which had been proclaimed in the beginning.

I have said that every idea has need of being realized in an

institution; this is so true, that revolutions themselves, warned

by the instinct which leads them to preserve, with more or less

integrity, the principles whence they have arisen, tend from the first

to create those institutions in which the revolutionary doctrines may

be perpetuated, or to constitute successors to represent them when

they shall have disappeared from the schools. This may lead to many

reflections on the origin and present condition of several forms of

governments in different countries of Europe.

When speaking of the rapidity with which scientific theories succeed

each other, when pointing out the immense development which the press

has given to the field of discussion, I have shown that this was not an

infallible sign of scientific progress, still less a guarantee for the

fertility of human thought in realizing great things in the material

and social order. I have said that grand conceptions proceed rather

from _intuition_ than from _discourses_; and on this subject I have

recalled to mind historical events and personages which place this

matter beyond a doubt. In support of this assertion, ideology might

have furnished us with abundant proofs, if it were necessary to have

recourse to science itself to prove its own sterility. But mere good

sense, taught by the lessons of experience daily, is enough to convince

us that the men who are the most able in theory are, often enough, not

only mediocre, but even weak in the exercise of authority. With regard

to the hints which I have thrown out with respect to "intuition" and

"discourses," I leave them to the judgment of any one who has applied

to the study of the human mind. I am confident that the opinion of

those who have reflected will not differ from my own.

NOTE 21, p. 175.

I have attributed to Christianity the gentleness of manners which

Europe now enjoys. Yet, in spite of the decline of religious belief

in the last century, this gentleness of manners, instead of being

destroyed, has only been raised to a higher degree. This contrast, the

effect of which, at first sight, is to destroy what I have established,

requires some explanation. First of all, we must recollect the

distinction pointed out in the text between effeminacy and gentleness

of manners. The first is a fault, the second a valuable quality; the

first emanates from enervation of the mind and weakening of the body;

the second is owing to the preponderance of reason, the empire of the

mind over the body, the triumph of justice over force, of right over

might. There is a large portion of real gentleness in manners at the

present day, but luxury has also a considerable part therein. This

luxury of manners has certainly not arisen from religion, but from

infidelity; the latter, never extending its view beyond the present

life, causes the lofty destinies, and even the very existence of the

soul, to be forgotten, puts egotism upon the throne, constantly excites

and keeps alive the love of pleasure, and makes man the vile slave of

his passions. On the contrary, at the first sight, we perceive that

our manners owe all their gentleness to Christianity; all the ideas,

all the feelings, on which this gentleness is founded, bear the mark

of Christianity. The dignity of man, his rights, the obligation of

treating him with the respect which is due to him, and of appealing to

his mind by reason rather than to his body by violence, the necessity

imposed on every one of keeping within the line of his duty, of

respecting the property and the persons of others,--all this body of

principles, to which real gentleness of manners is owing, is due, in

Europe, to the influence of Christianity, which, after a struggle of

many centuries against the barbarism and ferocity of invading nations,

succeeded in destroying the system of violence which these same nations

had made general.

As philosophy has taken care to change the ancient names consecrated

by religion, and authorized by the usage of a succession of ages,

it happens that some ideas, although the produce of Christianity,

are scarcely acknowledged as such, only because they are disguised

under a worldly dress. Who does not know that mutual love among men

and fraternal charity are ideas entirely due to Christianity? Who

does not know that pagan antiquity did not acknowledge them, that

it even despised them? And nevertheless, this affection, which was

formerly called _charity_, because charity was the virtue from which

it took its legitimate origin, has constantly taken care to assume

other names, as if it were ashamed to be seen in public with any

appearance of religion. The mania for attacking the Christian religion

being passed, it is openly confessed that the principle of universal

charity is owing to her; but language remains infected with Voltairian

philosophy even since the discredit into which that philosophy has

fallen. Whence it follows, that we very often do not appreciate as we

ought the influence of Christianity on the society which surrounds us,

and that we attribute to other ideas and other causes the phenomena

which are evidently owing to religion. Society at present, in spite of

all its indifference, is more indebted to religion than is commonly

supposed; it resembles those men, who, born of an illustrious family,

in which good principles and a careful education are transmitted as an

inheritance from generation to generation, preserve in their manners

and behavior, even in the midst of their disorders, their crimes, and I

will even venture to say, their degradation, some traits which denote

their noble origin.

NOTE 22, p. 183.

A few regulations of Councils, quoted in the text, are sufficient to

give an idea of the system pursued by the Church for the purpose of

reforming and softening manners. It may be remarked that, on previous

occasions during this work, I have a strong inclination to call to mind

monuments of this kind; I will state here that I have two reasons for

doing this: 1. When having to compare Protestantism with Catholicity,

I believe that the best means of representing the real spirit of the

latter is, to show it at work; this is done when we bring to light the

measures which were adopted, according to different circumstances,

by Popes and Councils. 2. Considering the direction which historical

studies take in Europe, and the taste, which is daily becoming more

general, not for histories, but for historical documents, it is proper

always to bear in mind that the proceedings of Councils are of the

highest importance, not only in historical and ecclesiastical matters,

but also in political and social ones; so that to pay no attention to

the data which are found in the records of Councils, is monstrously to

mutilate, or rather wholly to destroy, the history of Europe.

On this account it is very useful, and even necessary in many things,

to consult these records, although it may be painful to our indolence,

on account of their enormous extent and the ennui of finding many

things devoid of interest for our times. The sciences, above all those

which have society for their object, lead to satisfactory results only

by means of painful labors. What is useful is frequently mixed and

confounded with what is not. The most valuable things are sometimes

found by the side of repulsive objects; but in nature, do we find gold

without having removed rude masses of earth?

Those who have attempted to find the germ of the precious qualities

of European civilization among the barbarians of the north, should

undoubtedly have attributed the gentleness of our manners to the same

barbarians; they would have had in support of this paradox a fact

certainly more specious than that which they have relied on to give

the honor of elevating European women to the Germans. I allude to the

well-known custom of avoiding the infliction of corporal punishments,

and of chastising the gravest offences by fines only. Nothing is more

likely to make us believe that these nations were happily inclined to

gentleness of manners, since, in the midst of their barbarism, they

used the right of punishment with a moderation which is not found even

among the most civilized and refined nations. If we regard the thing

in this point of view, it seems as if the influence of Christianity on

the barbarians had the effect of rendering their manners more harsh

instead of more gentle; indeed, after Christianity was introduced, the

infliction of corporal punishments became general, and even that of

death was not excluded.

But when we attentively consider this peculiarity of the criminal code

of the barbarians, we shall see that, far from showing the advancement

of their civilization and the gentleness of their manners, it is, on

the contrary, the most evident proof that they were behindhand; it is

the strongest index of the harshness and barbarism which reigned among

them. In the first place, inasmuch as crimes among them were punished

by means of fines, or, as it was called, by _composition_, it is clear

that the law paid much more attention to _repairing an injury_ than to

_punishing a crime_; a circumstance which clearly shows us how little

they thought about the morality of the action, as they attended not

so much to the action itself, as to the wrong which it inflicted.

Therefore this was not an element of civilization but of barbarism;

this tended to nothing less than the banishment of morality from the

world. The Church combated this principle, as fatal in public as in

private affairs; she introduced into criminal legislation a new set of

ideas, which completely changed its spirit. On this point M. Guizot has

done full justice to the Catholic Church. I am delighted to acknowledge

and to insert this homage here by transcribing his own words. After

having pointed out the difference which existed between the laws of

the Visigoths, derived in great part from the Councils of Toledo, and

the other barbarian laws, M. Guizot signalizes the immense superiority

of the ideas of the Church in matters of legislation, of justice, and

in all that concerns the search after truth and the lot of men; he

adds: "In criminal matters, the relation of crimes to punishments is

fixed (in the laws of the Visigoths) according to sufficiently just,

philosophical, and moral notions. We there perceive the efforts of an

enlightened legislator, who contends against the violence and rashness

of barbarian manners. The chapter _De cæde et morte hominum_, compared

with the corresponding laws of other nations, is a very remarkable

example of this. Elsewhere, it is almost exclusively the injury

which seems to constitute the crime, and the punishment is sought in

that material reparation which is the result of composition. Here,

the crime is referred to its real and moral element, the intention.

The different shades of criminality, absolutely voluntary homicide,

homicide by inadvertence, provoked homicide, homicide with or without

premeditation, are distinguished and defined almost as well as in our

own codes, and the punishments vary in a proportion equally just. The

justice of the legislator has gone still further. He has attempted,

if not to abolish, at least to diminish the diversity of legal value

established among men by the other barbarian laws. The only distinction

which it preserves is that of freeman and slave. With respect to

freeman, the punishment varies neither with the origin nor the rank

of the deceased, but only according to the different degrees of the

culpability of the murderer. With regard to slaves, not venturing

completely to withdraw from the masters the right of life and death, it

has been attempted at least to restrain it by subjecting it to a public

and regular procedure. The text of the law deserves to be cited.

"'If no one guilty of, or an accomplice in, a crime ought to remain

unpunished, with how much more reason ought he to be condemned who

has wickedly and rashly committed a homicide! Thus, as masters, in

their pride, often put their slaves to death without any fault of

the latter, it is proper altogether to extirpate this license, and

to ordain that the present law shall be forever observed by all. No

master or mistress shall put to death, without public trial, any of

their slaves, male or female, or any person dependent on them. If a

slave or any other servant shall commit a crime which may subject him

to capital punishment, his master or his accuser shall immediately

inform the judge or the count or duke of the place where the deed

has been committed. After the affair has been inquired into, if the

crime be proved, let the criminal undergo, either by the judge or his

own master, the sentence of death which he has deserved; so that,

nevertheless, if the judge be unwilling to put the accused to death,

he shall draw up in writing a capital sentence, and then it shall be

in the power of the master to put him to death or not. Indeed, if the

slave, with a fatal audacity, resisting his master, has struck, or

attempted to strike, him with a weapon, with a stone, or with any other

kind of blow, and if the master, in defending himself, has killed the

slave in his passion, the master shall be in no way subject to the

punishment of homicide. But it shall be necessary to prove that the

event took place thus, and that by the testimony or oath of the slaves,

male or female, who shall have been present, and by the oath of the

author of the deed himself. Whoever from mere malice, either by his own

hand or that of another, shall have killed his slave without public

trial, shall be marked with infamy, declared incapable of appearing as

a witness, shall be obliged to pass the rest of his life in exile and

penance, and his goods shall go to the nearest relations to whom they

are given by the law.'--For. Jud. liv. vi. tit. xv. l. 12." (_Hist.

Génér. de la Civilisation en Europe_, leçon 6.)

I have copied this passage from M. Guizot with pleasure, because I

find there a confirmation of what I have just said on the subject of

the influence of the Church in softening manners, and of what I have

before stated with respect to the great amelioration which the Church

made in the condition of slaves, by limiting the excessive power of

their masters. This truth is proved in its place by so many documents,

that it seems useless to revert to it here; it is enough now for my

purpose, to point out that M. Guizot fully allows that the Church gave

morality to the legislation of the barbarians, by making them consider

the wickedness of the crime, whereas they had previously attended only

to the injury of which it was the cause; she has thus transferred the

action from the physical to the moral order, giving to punishments

their real character, and not allowing them to remain reduced to the

level of a mere material reparation. Hence we see that the criminal

system of the barbarians, which, at the first _view_, seemed to

indicate progress in civilization, was, in reality, owing to the little

ascendency which moral principles exercised over these nations, and to

the fact, that the views of the legislator were very slightly raised

above the purely material order.

There is another observation to be made on this point, viz. that

the mildness with which crimes were punished is the best proof of

the frequency with which they were committed. When in a country

assassinations, mutilations, and other similar attempts are very

rare, they are regarded with horror; those who are guilty of them are

chastised with severity. But when crimes are very frequently committed,

they insensibly lose their enormity; not only those who commit them,

but all the world become accustomed to their hideous aspect, and the

legislator is then naturally induced to treat them with indulgence.

This is shown us by the experience of every day; and the reader will

have no difficulty in finding in society at the present time more than

one crime to which the remark which I have just made is applicable.

Among the barbarians, it was common to appeal to force, not only with

respect to property, but also to persons; wherefore it was natural

that crimes of this kind should not be regarded by them with the same

aversion, it may be said with the same horror, as among a people where

the triumph of the ideas of reason, justice, right, and law, render

it impossible to conceive even the existence of a society where each

individual should believe himself self-entitled to do justice to

himself. Thus the laws against these crimes naturally became milder,

the legislator contenting himself with repairing the injury, without

paying much attention to the culpability of the delinquent. And this

is intimately connected with what I have said above with respect to

public conscience; for the legislator is always more or less the organ

of this public conscience. Where an action, in any society whatever,

is regarded as a heinous offence, the legislator cannot decree a mild

punishment for it; on the other hand, it is not possible for him to

chastise with great severity what the society absolves or excuses. It

will sometimes happen that this proportion will be altered, that this

harmony will be destroyed; but things soon quitting the path into which

violence forced them, will not be long in returning to their ordinary

course. Manners being chaste and pure, offences against them will be

covered with abhorrence and infamy; but if morals be corrupted, the

same acts will be regarded with indifference; at the most they will be

denominated slight weaknesses. Among a people where religious ideas

exercise great influence, the violation of all that is consecrated

to God is regarded as a horrible outrage, worthy of the greatest

chastisements; among another people, where infidelity has made its

ravages, the same violation is not even placed on the list of ordinary

offences; instead of drawing on the guilty the justice of the law,

scarcely does it draw on them the slight correction of the police.

The reader will understand the appropriateness of this digression on

the criminal legislation of the barbarians, when he reflects that,

in order to examine the influence of Catholicity on the civilization

of Europe, it is indispensable to take into consideration the other

elements which have concurred in forming that civilization. Without

this, it would be impossible properly to appreciate the respective

action of each of these elements, either for good or evil; impossible

to bring to light the share which the Church can exclusively claim in

the great work of our civilization; impossible to resolve the high

question which has been raised by the partisans of Protestantism on the

subject of the assumed advantages which the religious revolution of

the sixteenth century has conferred on modern society. It is because

the barbarian nations are one of these elements, that it is so often

necessary to attend to them.

NOTE 23, p. 189.

In the middle ages, almost all the monasteries and colleges of canons

had a hospital annexed to them, not only to receive pilgrims, but also

to aid in the support and consolation of the poor and the sick. If you

desire to see the noblest symbol of religion sheltering all kinds of

misfortune, consider the houses devoted to prayer and the most sublime

virtues converted into asylums for the miserable. This was exactly what

took place at that time, when the public authority not only wanted the

strength and knowledge necessary to establish a good administration for

the relief of the unfortunate, but did not even succeed in covering

with her ægis the most sacred interests of society; this shows us

that when all was powerless, religion was still strong and fruitful;

that when all perished, religion not only preserved herself, but even

founded immortal establishments. And pay attention to what we have

so many times pointed out, viz. that the religion which worked these

prodigies was not a vague and abstract religion--the Christianity of

the Protestants; but religion with all her dogmas, her discipline, her

hierarchy, her supreme Pontiff, in a word, the Catholic Church.

They were far from thinking in ancient times that the support of the

unfortunate could be confided to the civil administration alone,

or to individual charity; it was then thought, as I have already

said, that it was a very proper thing that the hospitals should be

subjected to the Bishops; that is to say, that there should be a kind

of assimilation made between the system of public beneficence and the

hierarchy of the Church. Hence it was that, by virtue of an ancient

regulation, the hospitals were under the control of the Bishops as well

in temporals as in spirituals, whether the persons appointed to the

care of the establishments were clerical or lay, whether the hospital

had been erected by order of the Bishop or not.

This is not the place to relate the vicissitudes which this discipline

underwent, nor the different causes which produced the successive

changes; it is enough to observe, that the fundamental principle, that

is, the interference of the ecclesiastical authority in establishments

of beneficence, always remained unimpaired, and that the Church never

allowed herself to be entirely deprived of so noble a privilege. Never

did she think that it was allowable for her to regard with indifference

the abuses which were introduced on this point to the prejudice of the

unfortunate; wherefore she has reserved at least the right to remedy

the evils which might result from the wickedness or the indolence

of the administrators. The Council of Vienne ordains, that if the

administrators of a hospital, lay or clerical, become relaxed in the

exercise of their charge, proceedings shall be taken against them by

the Bishops, who shall reform and restore the hospital of their own

authority, if it has no privilege of exemption, and by delegation, if

it has one. The Council of Trent also granted to Bishops the power

of visiting the hospitals, even with the power of delegates of the

Apostolic See in the cases fixed by law; it ordains, moreover, that the

administrators, lay or clerical, shall be obliged every year to render

their accounts to the ordinary of the place, unless the contrary has

been provided in the foundation; and that if, by virtue of a particular

privilege, custom, or statute, the accounts must be presented to any

other than the ordinary, at least he shall be added to those who are

appointed to receive them.

Without paying attention to the different modifications which the laws

and customs of various countries may have introduced in this matter,

we will say that one thing remains manifest, viz. the vigilance of the

Church in all that regards beneficence; it is her constant tendency, by

virtue of her spirit and maxims, to take part in affairs of this kind,

sometimes to direct them exclusively, sometimes to remedy the evils

which may have crept in. The civil power acknowledged the motives of

this holy and charitable ambition; we see that the Emperor Justinian

does not hesitate to give public authority over the hospitals to the

Bishops, thereby conforming to the discipline of the Church and the

general good.

On this point there is a remarkable fact, which it is necessary to

mention here, in order to signalize its beneficent influence; I mean,

the regulation by which the property of hospitals was looked upon as

Church property,--a regulation which was very far from being a matter

of indifference, although at first sight it might appear so. Their

property, thereby invested with the same privileges as that of the

Church, was protected by an inviolability so much the more necessary as

the times were the more difficult, and the more abounding in outrages

and usurpations. The Church which, notwithstanding all the public

troubles, preserved great authority and a powerful ascendency over

governments and nations, had thus a simple and powerful claim to extend

her protection over the property of hospitals, and to withdraw them as

much as possible from the cupidity and the rapacity of the powerful.

And it must not be supposed that this doctrine was introduced with any

indirect design, nor that this kind of community, this assimilation

between the Church and the poor, was an unheard-of novelty; on the

contrary, this assimilation was so well suited to the common order of

things, it was so entirely founded on the relations between the Church

and the poor, that if the property of the hospitals had the privilege

of being considered as the property of the Church, that of the Church,

on the other hand, was called the property of the poor. It is in these

terms that the holy Fathers express themselves on this point: these

doctrines had so much affected the ordinary language, that when, at

a later period, the canonical question with respect to the ownership

of the goods of the Church had to be solved, there were found by the

side of those who directly attributed this property to God, to the

Pope, to the clergy, some who pointed out the poor as being the real

proprietors. It is true that this opinion was not the most conformable

to the principles of law; but the mere fact of its appearing on the

field of controversy is a matter for grave consideration.

NOTE 24, p. 196.

A few reflections, in the form of a note, on a certain maxim of

toleration professed by a philosopher of the last century, Rousseau,

would not be out of place here; but the analogy of the following

chapter with that which we have just finished induces us to reserve

them for note 25. The considerations to which the opinion of Rousseau

will lead, apply to the question of toleration in religious matters, as

well as to the right of coercion exercised by the civil and political

power; I therefore beg my reader to reserve for the following note the

attention which he might be willing to afford me now.

NOTE 25, p. 203.

For the purpose of clearing up ideas on toleration as far as lay

in my power, I have presented this matter in a point of view but

little known; in order to throw still more light upon it, I will say

a few words on religious and civil intolerance,--things which are

entirely different, although Rousseau absolutely affirms the contrary.

Religious or theological intolerance consists in the conviction,

that the only true religion is the Catholic,--a conviction common to

all Catholics. Civil intolerance consists in not allowing in society

any other religions than the Catholic. These two definitions are

sufficient to make every man of common sense understand that the two

kinds of intolerance are not inseparable; indeed, we may very easily

conceive that men firmly convinced of the truth of Catholicity may

tolerate those who profess another religion, or none at all. Religious

intolerance is an act of the mind, an act inseparable from faith;

indeed, whoever has a firm belief that his own religion is true,

must necessarily be convinced that it is the only true one; for the

truth is one. Civil intolerance is an act whereby the will rejects

those who do not profess the same religion; this act has different

results, according as the intolerance is in the individuals or in

the government. On the other hand, religious tolerance consists in

believing that all religions are true; which, when rightly understood,

means that none are true, since it is impossible for contradictory

things to be true at the same time. Civil tolerance is, to allow men

who entertain a different religion to live in peace. This tolerance,

as well as the co-relative intolerance, produces different effects,

according as it exists in individuals or in the government.

This distinction, which, from its clearness and simplicity, is within

the reach of the most ordinary minds, has nevertheless been mistaken

by Rousseau, who affirms that it is a vain fiction, a chimera, which

cannot be realized, and that the two kinds of intolerance cannot be

separated from each other. Rousseau might have been content with

observing, that religious intolerance, that is to say, as I have

explained above, the firm conviction that a religion is true, if it is

general in a country, must produce, in the ordinary intercourse of life

as well as in legislation, a certain tendency not to tolerate any one

who thinks differently, principally when those who dissent are very

limited in number; his observation would then have been well founded,

and would have agreed with the opinion which I have expressed on this

point, when I attempted to represent the natural course of ideas and

events in this matter. But Rousseau does not consider things under this

aspect: desiring to attack Catholicity, he affirms that the two kinds

of intolerance are inseparable; "for," says he, "it is impossible to

live in peace with those whom one believes to be damned; to love them

would be to hate God, who punishes them." It is impossible to carry

misrepresentation further: who told Rousseau that the Catholics believe

in the damnation of any man, whoever he may be, as long as he lives;

and that they think that to love a man who is in error would be to

hate God? On the contrary, could he be ignorant that it is a duty, an

indispensable precept, a dogma, for Catholics to love all men? Could

he be ignorant that even children, in the first rudiments of Christian

doctrine, learn that we are obliged to love our neighbor as ourselves,

and that by this word neighbor is meant whoever has gained heaven,

or may gain it; so that no man, so long as he lives, is excluded

from this number? But Rousseau will say, you are at least convinced

that those who die in that fatal state are condemned. Rousseau does

not observe that we think exactly the same with respect to sinners,

although their sin be not that of heresy; now, it has not come into

the head of any body that good Catholics cannot tolerate sinners, and

that they consider themselves under the obligation of hating them.

What religion shows more eagerness to convert the wicked? The Catholic

Church is so far from teaching that we ought to hate them, that she

causes to be repeated a thousand times, in pulpits, in books, and in

conversations, those words whereby God shows that it is His will that

sinners shall not perish, that He wills that they shall be converted

and live, that there is more joy in heaven when one of them has

done penance, than upon the ninety-nine just who need not penance.

And let it not be imagined that the man who thus expresses himself

against the intolerance of Catholics was the partizan of complete

toleration; on the contrary, in society, such as he imagined it, he

did not desire toleration for those who did not belong to the religion

which the civil power thought proper to establish. It is true that

he is not at all anxious that the citizens should belong to the true

religion. "Laying aside," he says, "political considerations, let us

return to the right, and let us lay down principles on this important

point. The right which the social pact gives to the sovereign over

his subject does not exceed, as I have said, the bounds of public

utility. Subjects, therefore, are accountable to their sovereign for

their opinions, inasmuch as those opinions are of importance to the

community. Now, it is of great importance to the state, that every

citizen should have a religion which shall make him love his duties;

but the dogmas of that religion interest the state and its members only

inasmuch as those dogmas affect morality and the duties which those who

profess it are bound to perform towards others. As for the rest, each

one may have what opinions he pleases, without being subject to the

cognizance of the sovereign, for he has no power in the other world;

it is not his affair what may be the lot of his subjects in the life

to come, provided they be good citizens in this. There is, therefore,

a profession of faith purely civil, the articles whereof it belongs to

the sovereign to fix, not exactly as dogmas of religion, but as social

sentiments, without which it is impossible to be a good citizen or

a faithful subject. Without being able to compel any one to believe

them, it can banish from the state him who does not believe them; it

can banish him, not as wicked, but as anti-social, as incapable of

sincerely loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing his life to

his duty. If any one, after having publicly acknowledged these dogmas,

conducts himself as if he did not believe them, let him be punished

with death; he has committed the greatest of crimes, he has lied

against the laws." (_Du Contrat Social_, l. iv. c. 8.)

Such, then, is the final result of the toleration of Rousseau, viz.

to give to the sovereign the power of fixing articles of faith, to

grant to him the right of punishing with banishment, or even death,

those who will not conform to the decisions of this new Pope, or

who shall violate after having embraced them. However strange the

doctrine of Rousseau may appear, it is not excluded from the general

system of those who do not acknowledge the supremacy of authority in

religious matters. When this supremacy is to be attributed to the

Catholic Church, or its head, it is rejected; and, by the most striking

contradiction, it is granted to the civil power. It is very singular

that Rousseau, when banishing or putting to death the man who quits the

religion fashioned by the sovereign, does not wish him to be punished

as impious, but as anti-social. Rousseau, following an impulse very

natural in him, did not wish that impiety should be at all taken into

account when punishments were to be inflicted; but of what consequence

is the name given to his crime to the man who is banished or put to

death? In the same chapter, he allows an expression to escape him,

which reveals at once the object which he had in view in all this show

of philosophy: "Whoever dares to affirm that _out of the Church there

is no salvation_, ought to be driven from the state." Which means, in

other words, that toleration ought to be given to all except Catholics.

It has been said, that the _Contrat Social_ was the code of the French

revolution; and, indeed, the latter did not forget what the tolerant

legislator has prescribed with respect to Catholics. Few persons

now venture to declare themselves the disciples of the philosopher

of Geneva, although some of his timid partisans still lavish on him

unmeasured eulogies. Let us have sufficient confidence in the good

sense of the human race, to hope that all posterity, with a unanimous

voice, will confirm the stamp of ignominy with which all men of sense

have already marked that turbulent sophist, the impudent author of the

_Confessions_.

When comparing Protestantism with Catholicity, I was obliged to

treat of intolerance, as it is one of the reproaches which are most

frequently made against the Catholic religion; but my respect for truth

compels me to state, that all Protestants have not preached universal

toleration; and that many of them have acknowledged the right of

checking and punishing certain errors. Grotius, Puffendorf, and some

more of the wisest men that Protestantism can boast of, are agreed on

this point; therein they have followed the example of all antiquity,

which, in theory as well as in practice, has constantly conformed to

these principles. A cry has been raised against the intolerance of

Catholics, as if they had been the first to teach it to the world;

as if intolerance was a cursed monster, which was engendered only

where the Catholic Church prevailed. In default of any other reason,

good faith at least required that it should not be forgotten that the

principle of universal toleration was never acknowledged in any part

of the world; the books of philosophers, and the codes of legislators,

contain the principle of intolerance with more or less rigor. Whether

it were desired to condemn this principle as false, or to limit it, or

to leave it without application, it is clear that an accusation ought

not to have been made against the Catholic Church in particular, on

account of a doctrine and conduct, wherein she only conformed to the

example of the whole human race. Refined as well as barbarous nations

would be culpable therein, if there were any crime; and the stigma,

far from deserving to fall upon governments directed by Catholicity,

or on Catholic writers, ought to be inflicted on all the governments

of antiquity, including those of Greece and Rome; on all the ancient

sages, including Plato, Cicero, and Seneca; on modern governments and

sages, including Protestants. If men had had this present to their

minds, the doctrine would not have appeared so erroneous, nor the facts

so black; they would have seen that intolerance, as old as the world,

was not the invention of Catholics, and that the whole world, ought to

bear the responsibility of it.

Assuredly the toleration which, in our days, has become so general,

from causes previously pointed out, will not be affected by the

doctrines, more or less severe, more or less indulgent, which shall be

proclaimed in this matter; but for the very reason, that intolerance,

such as it was practised in other times, has at last become a mere

historical fact, whereof no one can fear the reappearance, it is proper

to enter into an attentive examination of questions of this kind, in

order to remove the reproach which her enemies have attempted to cast

upon the Catholic Church.

The recollection of the encyclical letter of the Pope against the

doctrines of M. de Lamennais, and the profound wisdom contained

therein appropriately presents itself here. That writer maintained

that universal toleration, the absolute liberty of worship, is the

normal and legitimate state of society,--a state which cannot be

changed without injury to the rights of the man and the citizen. M. de

Lamennais, combating the encyclical letter, attempted to show that it

established new doctrines, and attacked the liberty of nations. No; the

Pope, in his encyclical letter, does not maintain any other doctrines

than those which have been professed up to this time by the Church--we

may say by all governments--with respect to toleration. No government

can sustain itself if it is refused the right of repressing doctrines

dangerous to social order, whether those doctrines are covered with

the mantle of philosophy, or disguised under the veil of religion. The

liberty of man is not thereby assailed; for the only liberty which is

worthy of the name, is liberty in conformity with reason. The Pope did

not say that governments cannot, in certain cases, tolerate different

religions; but he did not allow it to be established as a principle,

that absolute toleration is an obligation on all governments. This

proposition is contrary to sound religious doctrines, to reason, to

the practice of all governments, in all times and countries, and the

good sense of mankind. The talent and eloquence of the unfortunate

author have not availed against this, and the Pope has obtained the

most solemn assent of all sensible men of all creeds; while the man

of genius, covering his brow with the shades of obstinacy, has not

feared to seize upon the ignoble arms of sophistry. Unhappy genius! who

scarcely preserves a shadow of himself, who has folded up the splendid

wings on which he sailed through the azure sky, and now, like a bird of

evil omen, broods over the impure waters of a solitary lake.

NOTE 26, p. 219.

When speaking of the Spanish Inquisition, I do not undertake to

defend all its acts either in point of justice, or of the public

advantage. Without denying the peculiar circumstances in which this

institution was placed, I think that it would have done much better,

after the example of the Inquisition of Rome, to avoid as much as

possible the effusion of blood. It might have perfectly watched over

the preservation of the faith, prevented the evils wherewith religion

was threatened by the Moors and the Jews, and preserved Spain from

Protestantism, without employing that excessive rigor, which drew upon

it the severe and deserved reprimands and admonitions of the Sovereign

Pontiffs, provoked the complaints of the people, made so many accused

and condemned persons appeal to Rome, and furnished the adversaries

of Catholicity with a pretext for charging _that_ religion with being

sanguinary which has a horror of the effusion of blood. I repeat, that

the Catholic religion is not responsible for any of the excesses which

have been committed in her name; and when men speak of the Inquisition,

they ought not to fix their eyes principally on that of Spain, but on

that of Rome. There, where the Sovereign Pontiff resides, and where

they best understand how the principle of intolerance should be

understood, and what use ought to be made of it, the Inquisition has

been mild and indulgent in the extreme. Rome is the part of the world

where humanity has suffered the least for the sake of religion; and

that, without the exception of any countries, either of those where

the Inquisition has existed, or of those where it has been unknown; of

those where Catholicity has been predominant, or where Protestantism

has triumphed. This fact, which cannot be denied, should suffice to

convince every sincere man what is the spirit of Catholicity in this

matter.

I make these remarks in order to show my impartiality, to prove that

I am not ignorant of evils, and that I do not hesitate to admit them

wherever I find them. Notwithstanding this, I am desirous that the

facts and the observations contained in the text, as well with respect

to the Inquisition itself, and to the different epochs of its duration,

as to the policy of the kings who founded and established it, shall not

be forgotten. The same desire makes me transcribe here a few documents

likely to throw a stronger light upon this important subject. In the

first place, I will quote the preamble of the Pragmatic Sanction of

the Catholic princes Ferdinand and Isabella, for the expulsion of the

Jews; we there find stated in a few words, the outrages which the Jews

inflicted on religion, and the dangers with which they threatened the

state.

"Book viii. chap. 2, second law of the new _Recopilacion_. Don

Ferdinand and Donna Isabella, at Granada, 30th March, 1492. Pragmatic

Sanction.

"Having been informed that there existed in these kingdoms bad

Christians, who judaized and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith,

whereof the communication between the Jews and Christians was in great

part the cause, we ordained, in the Cortes held by us in Toledo, in

1480, that the Jews in all the cities, towns, and other places of

our kingdoms and lordships, should be confined in the Juiferies and

places appointed for them to live and dwell in, hoping that this

separation would serve as a remedy; we also provided and gave orders

that an Inquisition should be appointed in our said kingdoms; which

Inquisition, as you know, is and has been practised for more than

twelve years, and has discovered a great number of delinquents, as

is notorious. As we have been informed by the Inquisitors, and many

other religious persons, lay and ecclesiastical, it is certain that

great injury to the Christians had been and is the result of the

participation, intercourse, and communication which they have had,

and still have, with the Jews; it has been proved that the latter, by

all the means in their power, constantly labor to subvert the faith

of Christians, to withdraw them from our holy Catholic faith, to lead

them away from it, to attract them, and to pervert them to their own

noxious creed and opinions; instructing them in the ceremonies and

observances of their own law; holding meetings to teach them what

they ought to believe and observe according to that law; taking care

to circumcise them and their children, giving them books in order to

recite their prayers, teaching them the fasts which they ought to

observe, assembling to read with them, teaching them the histories of

their laws; notifying to them the Paschal times before they arrive,

admonishing them as to what they ought to do and observe during those

times; giving them, bringing for them, from their own homes, the bread

of azimes, meats killed according to their ceremonies; instructing

them as to the things from which they ought to abstain, in order to

obey the law, as well in eating as in other things; persuading them,

as far as they can, to adopt and keep the Law of Moses, and making

them understand that no other law than that is true. All these things

are certain from numerous testimonies, from the acknowledgments of the

Jews themselves, and of those who have been perverted and deceived by

them, which has inflicted great injury, detriment, and dishonor on our

holy Catholic faith. Although we were already informed of these things

from many quarters, and although we were aware that the real remedy

for all these evils and inconveniences was to place an insurmountable

barrier to the communication of the Jews with the Christians, and to

banish the Jews from our kingdoms, we wished to be satisfied with

enjoining them to quit all the cities, towns, and places of Andalusia,

where it seemed that they had done the most mischief, believing that

that would be enough to hinder those of the other cities, towns, and

places of our kingdoms and lordships from doing and committing what has

been mentioned. But being informed that this measure, as well as the

acts of justice exercised on some of the Jews who were found guilty

of these offences and crimes against our holy Catholic faith, do not

suffice to remedy the evil thoroughly; for the purpose of obviating

and abolishing so great an opprobrium, such an offence against the

faith and the Christian religion, since it appears that the same Jews,

with a fatal ardor, redouble their perverse attempts wherever they

live and associate; wishing to suppress the occasion of offending more

against our holy Catholic faith, as well on account of those persons

whom it has pleased God up to this time to preserve, as of those who,

after having fallen, have repented and returned to our holy mother

the Church; wishing to prevent the offences which, on account of the

weakness of our human nature, and the suggestions of the devil, which

continually make war on us, might easily occur, if the principal cause

of the evil were not removed by the expulsion of the Jews from our

kingdoms; considering, besides, that when a great and detestable crime

has been committed by some members of a college or university, it is

reasonable that that college or that university should be dissolved

and destroyed, that some may be punished on account of the others, and

the lesser number on account of the greater; that those who pervert

the good and virtuous mode of life of cities and towns, by a contagion

which may injure others, may be banished from those towns; and that

if it be allowed to act thus for other slight causes prejudicial to

the state, there is still more reason to allow it for the greatest,

the most dangerous, the most contagious of crimes, that which is in

question: for all these reasons we, having consulted our Council, and

taken the advice of some prelates," &c.

We are not now examining whether or not there is any exaggeration

in these imputations against the Jews, although, according to all

appearances, there must have been a great deal of foundation for

them, in consequence of the situation in which the two rival nations

were placed. Observe, besides, that if the preamble of the Pragmatic

Sanction is silent with respect to a hundred accusations brought

against the Jews by the generality of the people, the report of these

crimes had not the less weight with the public; consequently, the

situation of the Jews was aggravated in an extraordinary degree, and

the princes were so much the more inclined to treat them with severity.

With respect to the mistrust with which the Moors and their descendants

must have been regarded, besides the facts pointed out above, others

might be related which show the disposition of men's minds to see

in the presence of these men a permanent conspiracy against the

Christians. Almost a century had elapsed since the conquest of Granada,

and it was still feared that this kingdom might be the centre of plots

contrived by the Moors against the Christians, the source of perfidious

projects, and the place whence came the means of maltreating in all

ways the defenceless persons upon our coasts.

Thus spoke Philip II. in 1567:

"Book viii. chap. 2, of the new _Recopilacion_.

"Law xx., which decrees severe punishments against the inhabitants of

the kingdom of Granada who shall have hidden, received, or favored the

Turks, Moors, or Jews, or given them intelligence, or corresponded with

them.

"D. Philip II., Madrid, 10 December, 1567.