endeavoring to do so--and looks upon this new country as a proper field
to make the experiment; and there are serious doubts upon the minds of
some, whether she will not succeed, at least in a measure, in partially
re-establishing her ancient power in this new country. She is disposed
to struggle hard for it Already has the tocsin of war been sounded along
her lines--her recruiting officers are abroad--she has her depots
here and there and everywhere--her paymasters and spiritual recruiting
sergeants are to be met with at all points. Go to the woods of
Oregon,--travel along its meandering and fertilizing streams,--and you
will find them there, preaching freedom, liberty of conscience, and
equal rights. Go into the swamps of Texas, and you find them there, too,
advocating civil rights, liberty of conscience, and perpetual slavery.
In Oregon and New England we find Papists shouting O'Connell, the Pope,
and the abolition of slavery. In the Southern States of the Union and in
Texas, they hurrah for slavery--slavery not for a day, for a year, or
a term of years--but forever! In the Northern States they brand the
slaveholders with the epithets--robbers, slave-breeders, and stealers
of men. In the South and in Texas, they denounce the Northerners as
fanatics, pirates, and sons of pirates. How long Americans will tolerate
these wolves in sheep's clothing among them, it is difficult to say;
but one thing I fear is certain, that as long as they have oats, and
Americans countenance among them Barn-burners, But-Enderst Repealers,
and Empire Clubs, under the popular name of Democrats, the evil to which
I allude will continue.
It is said that Popery is on the increase in the United States, and
there are not wanting some arguments to prove it. But though 1 have
taken some pains, and perhaps as much as any other man in the country,
to ascertain the truth of this assertion, I am still unconvinced on the
subject It is also asserted that Popery is on the increase all over the
world, and must continue to increase. Upon this, too, I have doubts; I
even believe that the contrary is the fact.
If by the increase of Popery is meant the number of square miles, or the
extent of country which they own or occupy, it may be said, with some
propriety, that if Popery is not advancing, it is not retrograding;
but if by the increase of Popery is meant that its creed and idolatrous
doctrines are gaining ground, I flatly deny the assertion. As another
expresses it, a system that degrades can never advance. And that the
doctrines of the Church of Rome do degrade, I think I have already
proved. The Romish Church and its doctrines have crushed the spirit, and
deadened the life of every country, and every people, that ever believed
or maintained it; and shall our free spirits and bold intellects, in
the nineteenth century, be broken and bowed down like those in Popish
countries? It can never be. But this is not the question, exactly. The
question is, or ought to be, Is the Popish religion on the increase?
Does it gain upon the Protestant religion, or is it going ahead of it,
as some even in these United States will have it? This question can
be easily answered; and for that answer, which I am about to give, I
acknowledge myself much indebted to an anonymous but elegant writer in
the Protestant Quarterly Review for the month of January, 1846. "Ask
yourselves which religion,--Protestant or Popish,--will spread widest in
an age of science and knowledge--which is best fitted to the growth of
the human mind? In all Protestant countries, wealth, intelligence, and
a high civilization! are everywhere seen; in all Catholic countries,
dead-ness and decay rest upon everything which nature made beautiful.
Under Protestantism, every department of science has made rapid
progress. The very spirit of freedom breathes through the Newtonian and
Baconian philosophy. Everywhere, from the harsh, barren soil of northern
nations, sprang up life and light England, Scotland, Prussia, in men
of strong intellect, are superior to any of the older nations, in any
preceding age. Mathematics, natural philosophy, metaphysics, ethics,
commerce, agriculture, legislation--the whole extent of modern
civilization--date from the Reformation, and exist only in Protestant
countries. And those nations of Europe which caught but a glimmer of
liberal opinions, but which in the Catholic or Popish reaction were
again subjected to Rome, are far in advance of those countries,
beautiful as they are, in the South of Europe, which never saw
Protestantism. A single glance into the history of modern science,
literature, and politics, will fully convince any candid mind of this.
The entire spirit of northern institutions, their great progress, their
growing intelligence, are all owing to Protestantism. They date their
birth from it, they are thoroughly imbued with its spirit, they must
live still in its spirit Firm governments and wise laws; just and
liberal rulers; free and intelligent people; nobler views of man; nobler
views of God; more knowledge; more liberty; more faith;--these have the
genius of Protestantism imparted, and in their ever-growing life it
will live. How different from this is the condition of the old Catholic
States! The noble palaces of Italy are deserted; banditti infest the
beautiful shores of Campania. The Dantes, the Petrarchs, the Tassos, are
gone forever. The poetry, the chivalry, the bright southern romance,
the fiery southern valor, have passed away; miserable want and beggary,
vagabond recklessness, and sullen, obstinate, threadbare pride, are the
remains of fair Italy. Ireland with her poetry and merriment is silent
and desponding; her laughter has mournfully died away; her sweet
melodies, equally beautiful, whether sung sadly or gaily, are chanted by
lips quivering with emotion and parched by hunger and thirst Popery has
degraded and saddened her very soul.
"Austria, tyrannous and bigoted,--an enemy to all freedom, whether
of thought or action,--with her degrading institutions, and decaying
principles, is rather worse than poor Ireland. It is better to die than
to kill Spain, the birth-place of Loyola; the valiant opponent of the
crescent and turban, for near eight hundred years; the land of brave
knights and fair ladies; of song and dance; of literature, refinement,
and elegant culture,--is wretched indeed. Squalid, seditious, fiercely
proud and cruel, it now excites little compassion, still less of hate or
fear.
"How are we to account for this immeasurable difference between the
realms of Protestantism and those of Catholicism? Are the Italians
inferior by nature to the Scotsmen, or the Spanish to the Danes? We
cannot admit this; all history and philosophy disprove it. Yet now, in
their degradation, they can scarcely appreciate their ancient grandeur;
while the heavy nations of the north, have suddenly leaped far beyond
their utmost limit The only cause which can be assigned for this, is
the vast difference in the genius of the two religious influences:
Catholicism has blighted, Protestantism has advanced and strengthened.
Can this ever be undone? Has all modern science been preaching a lie?
Have the last three centuries been pushing forward in the face of
truth, and acting out the lie? Can the onward sweep of civilization be
retarded? and must the work pause, and wait till the huge car of Rome
can rumble slowly up and bear it onward into the caves of night again?
Forbid it Heaven, I cannot believe it."
But the Papist will say, "it is evident, from the recent course of
events in France, Spain, Italy, Ireland, nay, to some extent, in the
United States, that Popery is gaining ground and making extraordinary
efforts to insure ultimate success." Be it so. Even admitting that they
are attempting and strenuously trying to advance, that does not insure
victory or final success, There are two broad and undeniable facts,
which forbid this result. One is, that from the beginning of the
world to the present hour, man has steadily advanced in progressive
intelligence; and the other is, that the roman mind has never been
known to run backwards. Papists will say, and it is now said from their
pulpits, in these United States, "that Popery can accommodate, and will
suit itself to the advancing acquirements of man, and finally conform to
our free institutions." Let us look at this question, and fairly examine
its truth or falsehood. Upon a correct understanding of this subject,
and upon it alone, can be founded a correct estimate or view of the
ultimate fate of Popery in the United States. I flatter myself that I
have proved, to the satisfaction of all Americans who have done me the
honor of reading my books, that Popery has not changed in its doctrine
or discipline; or, that if any change has been effected in either, it
is decidedly for the worse. A recent French writer, well known to the
readers of history--La Mennais--has tested the doctrines of Popery by
the principles of intellectual advancement. He proved that Popery and
civil rights were incompatible with each other, and could not co-exist
under any government nor under any form or state of society. No argument
could be more beautiful, more eloquent, or more convincing, than that
by which he demonstrated to the world that human liberty and Christian
liberty are antagonistic to Popery. He required no more from the Church
of Rome than to conform to the simple principles of Christian freedom.
His works are now extant, and I believe are to be had in all well
furnished libraries in the United States. They can be seen and read by
our fellow citizens, and they will find in perusing them that what I
state is correct The writings of La Mennais soon came to the ears of the
Pope and his Inquisitors, and they were not long in discovering that
if the principles contended for by La Mennais were admitted, the Popish
Church must fall. There was no medium; either that, or every other
doctrine must be denied, and all arguments in favor of the civil rights
of man had no foundation in fact. How did his Holiness, the Pope, act
on this occasion? I do not allude here, to any Pope of ancient times,
I allude to the Pope who now lives, and presides over the Infallible
Church. He cursed La Mennais; he damned him and his writings. He
insisted that La Mennais should write no more on the subject, and I
blush for the honor of humanity, of mind, of talents, of genius, and
liberty of thought, to state that La Mennais submitted to this tyrant
Pope, and that only the other day, in 1833, though he declared to his
friends, that, while he bowed to the Pope's, supremacy, he felt that he
was putting his name to the blasphemous admission that the Pope was God.
The Popish bishops of this country have the hardihood to say, that
Popery is the friend and advocate of pure democracy, and that miserable
tool of theirs, Brownson, says amen. They depute him to lecture upon
this subject in almost all the large cities throughout the Union. He may
do some injury to the morals of our people, but his reign cannot be of
long duration; such is the character of the man, that whatever he says
cannot fructify. He is, among our fellow citizens, what the ant is among
a heap of corn; it takes it to its winter store house to feed itself
alone, but whoever will carefully examine the grain or corn which it
takes from others, will find that it has no bud; it destroys that, and
thus selfishly and mischievously prevents 25* the grain from fructifying
and enlarging. Brownson takes with him, and appropriates to himself,
many plausible arguments from the works of eminent men, but the
slightest contact, on his part, with the purest characters, is
sufficient to destroy their vitality. If he were even to carry with him
into the pulpit, the soundest principles of morality, his very presence,
and past infidel life, would destroy their force; and a correct
examination of them would show the Christian who might examine them,
that they had no bud or vital principle within them and could produce no
fruit It is said that some men come into this world with two left hands,
two crooked eyes, a good deal of brains, and little or no organization
of its faculties. Brown-son is one of those characters. He has two left
hands, and was never known to do anything right; whatever he touches
he is sure to despoil and disfigure. Both his eyes are crooked; he has
never yet been known to see anything straight; so crooked are they, that
he sees things only through the eyes of others. Hence it is, perhaps,
that he never writes anything which is his own, but upon all subjects
gives us the views of others, and as no two think alike, in general,
Brown-son's writings invariably contradict themselves. Add to this that
great defect of order in his brain, and we cannot apprehend that his
lectures will do much permanent injury. This Brownson has appeared
to me, during the short time I have been noticing his movements and
opinions, to be, in reality, a shallow-pated bombastic pretender to
science and literature. He seems to know books just as some people know
great men, they only learn their names, and then boast of an intimate
acquaintance with them. He talks very fluently about his intimacy with
Tasso, Dante, Petrarch, Boccacio, and others. He and Boccacio seem to
be as intimate as pickpockets (to use a common though vulgar phrase.)
I wonder if Mr. Brownson recollects any of those anecdotes related by
Boccacio about certain nuns, who lived in the vicinity of his lather's
residence? Will the illustrious changeling permit me to bring one or
two to his recollection? One probably will be enough, as my readers
may already have had sufficient information concerning the amusements
practised by nuns and sisters of Charity in their convents.
It seems there was a large establishment of nuns in the neighborhood
were Boccacio resided. The mother Abbess was of noble descent, a fine
fair-haired girl, young and beautiful. There happened to be, adjoining
the nunnery, a friary; among these friars, as Boccacio tells us, in a
work of his, which has since been suppressed by the Popes, was a young
man of fine personal appearance, and who possessed, in a remarkable
degree, the power of assuming any character he pleased. He was, besides,
a ventriloquist, and could thus personate and imitate any character or
any voice he chose. The mother Abbess took an extraordinary fancy to
this young friar, and tried by every means in her power to have him
appointed confessor and spiritual guide to the nuns. But the Superior of
the friary was not easily deceived. He peremptorily refused to listen to
the most pious entreaties of the mother Abbess, and positively declined
giving the friar faculties to hear her confession.
What was to be done in this case? The holy nun soon hit upon an
expedient. She sent for the friar, who always had admission to an iron
grating in the wall, which separated these holy nuns from this sinful
world! She told the friar that her establishment was much in want of
a gardener, and advised him to change his whole appearance, assume the
character of a very old and feeble man, imitate his voice, and come the
next day, with his spade on his shoulder, to apply for the situation
of gardener to the nunnery. He accordingly came the next morning,
thoroughly-metamorphosed, and in the most doleful and piteous tones of
distress and want, begged of the holy mother Abbess, for the love she
bore the blessed virgin Mary, to give him employment, whereby he might
support himself and his poor half-starved and bed-ridden wife. The
holy nun moved by charity, and nothing else, of course, employed him as
gardener; and moved by compassion for the weak and feeble old man, she
occasionally sent for him to her cell to nourish him with some wine and
water. _Verbum sat_. The Protestant reader will not forget that Boccacio
was a Roman Catholic and is quoted by Brownson, in his Review, as one of
those luminaries which adorned the Popish Church between the sixth and
sixteenth centuries.
There was another, among the luminaries who flourished "betwixt the
sixth and sixteenth centuries," named Rabalais. I am rather surprised
that Brownson has not quoted him, as a model of a Christian bishop. He
was a Roman Catholic bishop, and died in full communion with the Romish
Church. He was laid in his coffin dressed in his episcopal robes.
The works of Rabalais are very little read now-a-days, nor could I
conscientiously recommend them to the attention of any Christian reader;
I allude to him with the sole view of giving Popish advocates the full
advantage of the testimony and example of a Roman Catholic bishop in
their favor.
There was not, perhaps, in all France, a more obscene writer than
Rabalais. He was remarkable however for the depth and keenness of his
satire. He felt the degradation of his position as a Popish bishop, but
he wanted moral courage enough to renounce so advantageous a position
in society as that which the Romish Church assigned him. The only
alternative left him, under these circumstances, was to try to effect
some reform in his Church and the morals of its priests. He turned
against them the arrows of his ridicule, and though the wounds and
scars, which they left behind them, were broad and painful, yet there
was so much justice in all his statements, that the Infallible Church
dared not raise a finger against him. I refer Bishops Hughes, Fenwick,
and their corporal, Brownson, to his writings. They may, in all
probability, find some similitude between themselves, their Popes, and
other bishops, to those illustrious characters, Carragantua, Pantagruel,
Trippet, and others so conspicuously alluded to in the works of
Rabalais. I expect nothing else than censure for the bare mention of
some of those writers to whom I have referred-It seems to have become
quite fashionable now-a days with pulpit orators, to censure anything
like gen-real reading; at any rate, no fault must be found with the sins
of the times. I have seldom heard a discourse or lecture, from infidels
of the present day, where they have not found fault with all those
writings in which sin and immorality are denounced in plain scriptural
language. There are, among our modern Liberal Christians, many who seem
shocked at the idea that Eugene Sue, for instance, should have dared to
satirize Popery, or that Guinet, or Michelet, should presume to denounce
Jesuitism or warn mankind against giving it any encouragement amongst
them. The argument used by these Liberal Christians or philosophers--for
they are all philosophers, every one of them--is this; if evangelical
Christians should succeed in suppressing Popery, we philosophic, and
Liberal Christians, shall be their next victims; _ergo_, Eugene
Sue, Michelet, Gui-net, and all who write against Popery, deserve no
encouragement from us. Admirable logicians, these Liberal Christians!
Profound and deep historians, these modern philosophers! Evangelical
Christians have never persecuted Liberal Christians. I would challenge
them to produce an instance where they have ever acted upon the
offensive. Let them analyze the creed of evangelical Christians; let
them dissect it; let them break it up, word by word, and cut each word
into the most minute fractions; and if they can show me, among those
words or fractions, a solitary particle, or an isolated idea, which
teaches them to persecute any man on account of his religious opinions,
I will acknowledge that Liberal Christians are right in preferring the
ascendancy of Popery to that of evangelical Christianity. But how is it
in the Popish creed? Let these Liberal Christians turn back to the pages
of history, and they will find that the creed and canons of Popery, as
well as the decretals of its Church, all teach that Liberal Christians
are to be dealt with by civil law, and that by civil law is to be
understood the Inquisitorial law, which consigns every one of them to
the sword, fire, and faggot. Do these gentlemen recollect the fate of
Arius and his followers? Do they forget thar the disciples of Arius
were all Liberal Christians, and numbered, at one time, a vast and large
portion of those who professed any belief in the doctrines of Christ,
either as God or man? Pause, gentlemen, I entreat of you,--recollect
that the reason why Papists are silent in relation to your doctrines,
is simply this: they look upon you as damned, beyond a possibility of
salvation. They place you and the Jews on the same level, and consider
both as blasphemers of the name of Christ, and as altogether beneath
the notice of all men who profess the Christian religion in any form
whatever; and rely upon it, when I assure you, that I myself, who have
been a Popish priest, have studied the doctrines of that Church to
little purpose, if you are not the very first whom Papists will destroy,
and whose property they will confiscate to the use of their Infallible
Church, should they ever have the power to do so.
It is a question with me, whether many of the lecturers of the present
day, in their unqualified _anathemas_ against modern literature and
general reading, are not doing more harm than good. Assuredly they
are injuring, more or less, the cause of liberty, and giving all the
advantages they possess, to arbitrary power; especially to the factious,
despotic, and violent power of the tyrant court of Rome. Those lecturers
who denounce the writings of Eugene Sue, Guinet, and others, against
the Popish Church, are bringing upon this country--unconsciously, I
believe--all the evils of foreign tyranny, without any consolation. They
are helping to destroy themselves, and must be destroyed in time by a
superior power. Charity obliges me to suppose these lecturers sincere,
and if they were equally discreet, might be useful auxiliaries in
promoting the moral and political interests of our country. They are the
instruments of cool-headed, dispassionate politicians, who see nothing,
and care to see nothing, but their own private interests.
Besides all this, these declaimers against modern literature and general
reading are injuring the cause of science. He who from his pulpit, or in
a lyceum hall, disapproves of the writings of Eugene Sue against Popish
domination, merely because he relates many facts and circumstances which
are not proper to be seen or read by some of his hearers,--aims his
blows at many of the noblest sciences which God has permitted man to
study, and for reasons which could scarcely be satisfactory to a child,
viz: because "some passages in his writings are rather indelicate." This
is certainly as strong a reason as Dr. Sangrado, of Quixotic notoriety,
gave to his patient, when asked why he did not prescribe cold water; "I
have," said the Doctor, "already prescribed hot water." The reason given
for not reading Eugene Sue may apply with equal force against the study
of surgery; and I should not be in the least surprised, if before long
some of those gentlemen denounced and forbade the study of the noble and
almost heavenly science of anatomy. Assuredly, beautiful, symmetrical,
and lovely as the human frame is externally, it presents to the human
eye, when dissected and exposed, in its native and naked proportions, no
very pleasing object to contemplate. But does it follow that the science
of anatomy should not be studied? Does it follow that works upon that
science should not be read? Certainly not; and he who would contend for
the contrary would be well suited by assigning to him an abode in some
lunatic asylum.