It follows, in the second place, that the Catholic Church is fashioned

after the hypostatic moment, and is its most lively representation.

For as that moment implies the bringing together of a human and divine

element, finite and infinite, absolute and relative, necessary and

contingent, independent and subject, visible and invisible, in the

unity of one divine personality, so the Catholic Church is the result

of a double element, one human, the other divine; one visible, the

other invisible; one finite, the other infinite; one necessary, the

other contingent; one immutable, the other variable; the one

independent and authoritative, the other subject and dependent, in the

union of the Theanthropos with the sacramental element. This union of

the Theanthropos with the sacramental element, both moral and

physical, is, as we have said, the very essence of the Catholic

Church, and which endows it with that double series of attributes and

perfections, one belonging to God, the other essentially belonging to

the finite, but which are brought together in one being in force of

that union; and all the difficulties brought against the church hinge

upon that very thing--the sacramental union of all the divine

attributes of the Theanthropos with the finite attributes of the

sacramental element. All those who object to all or some of the

Theanthropic attributes of the church object to the possibility and

existence of that union.

But that union, as the last supreme imperative law of the cosmos, is

such a strict consequence of the plan, is so connected and linked with

all the other moments of God’s action _ad extra_, depends so entirely

upon the identical principle which originates the others, that once we

deny it we are obliged to yield up all the other truths, and take

refuge in nihilism, and proclaim the death of our intelligence. For

once we admit the impossibility of the union of the attributes or

substance of the Theanthropos with the sacramental element, on the

plea that the attributes of each are opposite and contradictory, for

the self-same reason we must admit the impossibility of the union of

the Word of God with the human nature, and sweep the hypostatic moment

clean away; because, if it is impossible to bring together opposite 832

attributes in one sacramental being, it is much more impossible, so to

speak, to bring not only attributes but two natures quite opposite

together, into one subsistence and personality, and entirely exchange

attribution and names, and call man God, and God man, and attribute

exclusively divine acts to human nature, and _vice versa_. But, having

denied the hypostatic moment in consequence of that pretended

impossibility, we cannot logically stop here. We must generalize the

question, and deny all possible union between the finite and the

infinite. For what can there be more opposite and more contradictory

than these terms, absolute and relative, necessary and contingent,

immense and limited, eternal and successive, immutable and changeable,

universal and particular, self-existing and made, infinite and finite?

And could they possibly be brought together into any kind of union?

Nay, we must go further, and deny the very coexistence of both terms,

because one certainly seems to exclude the other--the universal being,

for instance, including all possible being, must necessarily imply the

impossibility of the coexistence of any particular, circumscribed,

limited being. Arrived at this, we must conclude that all finite

things which come under our observation, not being able to coexist

with the universal being, must be only modifications and developments

of that same, and throw ourselves into pantheism. But once pantheism

is admitted, we must, to be logical, suppose the existence of a

universal something impelled by an interior instinct of nature to

unfold and develop itself by a succession of efforts, one more

distinct, marked, and perfect than the other. Now, taking this

substance at one determinate stage of development, and going backward,

from a more perfect development to one less perfect, and from this to

one still less perfect, we must necessarily arrive at the most

indeterminate, indefinite, abstract _something_, at the idea-being of

Hegel--that is, at nihilism.

Nihilism is consequently the logical product of the denial of the

union of the infinite attributes of the Theanthropos with the

sacramental element, the very essence of the Catholic Church. _The

Catholic Church, therefore--or nihilism._

And we beg the reader to observe that this logical conclusion which we

have drawn is simply the history of the errors of the last three

hundred years, and consequently our conclusions receive all the

support which the gradual unfolding of error for three hundred years

is able to afford.

The impossibility of the union of the infinite attributes and

substantial presence of the Theanthropos in the sacramental element

was proclaimed in the sixteenth century by Protestantism, when on one

side it denied the authority and infallibility of the church, and

consequently denied the union of these Theanthropic attributes with

the moral instrument, the hierarchy, and on the other side denied the

real presence, and thus refused to allow a union of the substance of

the Theanthropos with the sacramental elements of bread and wine. It

did not then see the full meaning of its denial, but yet established

the principle of the impossibility of the union of the Theanthropos in

action or substance with the sacramental elements. Deism followed,

and, making the Protestant principle its own, added a logical

application to it, and asked: How can the uncreated, infinite, and

absolute being be united to a nature created, finite, and relative?

or, in other words: How could the finite and the infinite be united so 833

as to form the God-man? And then, like Protestantism, in reference to

sacramental union, not being able to conceive that possibility, deism

denied the hypostatic moment. But the question did not stop here.

Pantheism followed, and, being gifted with as much logical acumen as

deism, generalized the question, and asked: How can the finite coexist

with the infinite, which comprehends all? And not being able to see

the possibility of such coexistence, it refused all existence to the

finite, and admitted the identity of all things and the unity of

substance, allowing the finite no other existence but one ephemeral

and phenomenal. This was the pantheism of Spinoza and others. But

Hegel, with more acumen than all the rest, saw clearly that it was

impossible to admit an _infinite_ substance subject to modification

and development, unless it was supposed to be, previously to any

development, altogether abstract, and shorn of all determination and

concreteness, among which determinations must be ranked existence

also; because development implies limit, definiteness, determination,

circumscription; hence, that primitive something could not be supposed

infinite, except it was shorn of everything, even existence.

Consequently, he proclaimed nihilism as the principle of all things.

And nihilism, and along with it the death of the intelligence, we

repeat, must be admitted, or the Catholic Church--all truth or no

truth.

We conclude: Deny the Catholic Church, or the union of the attributes

and substance of the Theanthropos with the sacramental elements,

because those opposite things cannot be brought together, and you must

deny the union between human nature and the eternal Word for the same

reason. Deny the hypostatic moment, and you must deny every kind of

union between the finite and the infinite for the same identical

reason, and you must deny the very coexistence of the finite and the

infinite, and throw yourself into pantheism.

We defy any one to find a flaw in the logical connection of these

conclusions, or to prove that we have misstated the genesis and

development of error for the last three hundred years.

From the essence of the Catholic Church, it follows that she is

necessarily divided into two moments--the active moment, and the

passive moment.

The first is the Theanthropos acting through his moral instruments,

proposing and expounding to all human persons, in time and space, the

_gnosis_ of the whole cosmos, in its cause, term, effect, and

destiny, actualizing through the same moral instruments all the other

sacramental moments in human persons, and through the same moral

instruments governing and directing the whole elevated cosmos. This

moment is called in theological language _ecclesia docens_, or teaching

church. The second are all human persons to whom the doctrine is

taught, and who are the recipients of all the sacraments and the

subjects of the government of the church. This moment is called

_ecclesia audiens_, or hearing church.

The first is essentially active, the other passive; the one

communicates, the other receives--though some members, in different

relations, belong to the one or the other.

Though in demonstrating the essence of the Catholic Church, as we

flatter ourselves, quite in a novel aspect, we have at the same time

demonstrated all the Theanthropic attributes belonging to and resulting

from that essence, yet, for the sake of those who cannot see all the 834

consequences included in a general principle, we shall dilate at some

length upon all the essential attributes of the church, and those

characteristic marks which constitute her what she is, and point her

out from any other body pretending to the same name.

The first attribute, which evidently emanates from the essence of the

church, is its externation, and capacity of coming under the

observation of men. For, if the essence of the church consists in

being the Theanthropos, incorporating his power, as well as his

substantial presence, in physical as well as personal instruments, and

through them incorporating all human persons unto himself, who can

fail to perceive that church must be visible, outward, able to come

under the observation of men, in that double relation of sacramental

extension of Christ and of having men as objects of incorporation with

him?

An invisible church would imply a denial of any sacramental agency,

and would be absolutely unfit for men, who are _incarnate_ spirits.

Hence, those sects which hold that the saints alone belong to the

church have not the least idea of its essence. Holiness being

altogether a spiritual and invisible quality, the saints could not

know each other, nor, consequently, hold any communication with each

other; the sinners could not find out where the saints are to be heard

of; and therefore there could not be any possibility of discovering

the church or any moral obligation of joining it.

The next attribute essentially belonging to the church is its

_permanence_, in theological language called indefectibility, which

implies not only duration in time and space, but also _immutability_

in all its essential elements, attributes, and rights. The church must

continue to be, as long as the cosmos lasts, whole and entire in all

time and space, in the perfect enjoyment of all its attributes,

characteristic marks, and rights.

The reason of this attribute is so evident and palpable that we are at

a loss to understand how it could enter men’s minds that the church

could and did fail or change in its essential elements. When

Protestantism, to cloak over its rebellion in breaking loose from

allegiance to the church of the living God, alleged as reason that it

had failed and changed in its essential elements--when Protestantism

repeats daily the same assertion, it exposed and exposes itself to an

absurdity at which the merest tyro in logic would laugh. It is one of

the first axioms of ontology that the essences of things are immutable

and eternal: immutable, inasmuch as they can never change; eternal,

inasmuch as they must be conceived as possible from eternity, whether

they have any subjective existence or not. Essences are like number.

Add to it, or subtract from it, and you can never have the same

number; likewise add to the essence of a thing, or subtract from it,

and you may have another thing, but never the same essence.

Now, what is the essence of the church? It consists in the

Theanthropos incorporating his infinite power and his substantial

presence in physical and personal instruments, and through them

uniting to himself human persons, elevating them to a supernatural

state, and enabling them to develop and unfold their supernatural

faculties until they arrive at their ultimate perfection, and all this

in time and space.

Now, how can we suppose the church to fail when its very essence is

founded on the union of the Theanthropos with the sacraments? The only 835

possible failure we can suppose is if the presence of the Theanthropos

were to be withdrawn from the sacraments; and this could happen either

because the Theanthropos may be supposed powerless to continue that

presence or unwilling; in both cases, the divinity of the Theanthropos

is denied; because the first would argue want of power, the second a

senseless change. Protestantism would do much better to deny at once

the divinity of its founder, instead of admitting the failure of the

church he founded. It would be by far more honest and logical. We can

respect error when it is logical and consistent, but we must despise

obstinate nonsense and absurdity. The same attribute is claimed by the

end of the church--which is, to communicate to human persons in time

and space the term of the supernatural moment. As long, then, as there

are men on earth, so long must the church continue to possess

invariable and unchangeable those elements with which it was endowed

by its divine founder. Should it fail or change, how could men after

the failure be incorporated into the Theanthropos? Should it fail or

change, how could men believe in the possibility of their attaining

their end? Should it fail once and at one period only, men would no

longer possess any means of knowing when, and how, and where it might

not fail again, and therefore they could not but look upon the whole

thing with utter contempt.

The next attribute is infallibility.

Certainty objectively considered is the impossibility of error in a

given case. Infallibility also, considered in itself, is the

impossibility of error in every case within the sphere to which that

infallibility extends. This attribute is essentially necessary to the

church, but before we enter upon its vindication we will say a word

about its nature, the subject in whom it resides, the object it

embraces, and the mode of exercising it. The nature of the

infallibility claimed by the church does not consist in a new

inspiration: because inspiration implies an interior revelation of an

idea not previously revealed or known. Now, this does not occur, and

is not necessary, in order that the church may fulfil its office. The

revelation of the whole _gnosis_ respecting God, the cosmos, and their

mutual relations in time and in eternity, was made by the Theanthropos

in the beginning. The church carries it in her mind, heart, and life,

as she traverses centuries and generations. But as all the particular

principles constituting that _gnosis_ are not all distinctly and

explicitly formulated and set in human language, so it becomes the

office of the church from time to time to formulate one of those

principles. In this she is assisted by the Theanthropos in such a

manner that she may infallibly express her mind in the new formula she

utters. Again, an error may arise against the revealed gnosis she

carries in her mind. Then it is her office to proclaim what her mind

is upon the subject, and condemn whatever may be contrary to it.

Again, she is assisted by the Theanthropos in such a manner as to

effect both these things infallibly. Infallibility in the present

case, therefore, may be defined a permanent assistance of the

Theanthropos preserving the church from falling into error in the

exercise of her office.

The object of this attribute is limited to these three:

1. She is infallible in teaching and defining all theoretical

doctrines contained in the revelation, be it written or not, but

handed down socially from the beginning.

2. In all doctrines having reference to morality. 836

3. In the choice and determination of the external means of embodying

that doctrine, theoretical or practical; whether the external means

which embodies the doctrine be used by the church, or, used by others,

must be judged by the church.

This last object of infallibility is so absolutely necessary that

without it the other two would become nugatory and fictitious. If, in

propounding a doctrine, the church could err in fixing upon such

objective expressions of language as would infallibly exhibit her

mind, men could never be assured whether the church had expressed

herself correctly or not, and could never, consequently, be certain of

her meaning. Likewise, if the church could err in teaching whether

such and such expression of language, intended to embody a doctrine,

contains an error or a truth, men would be left in doubt whether to

embrace or reject it, and could never, in embracing it, be absolutely

certain whether they were holding a revealed doctrine or a falsehood.

From this it follows that: First, the church is not infallible in

things belonging exclusively to natural sciences, and in no way

connected with revelation; second, she is not infallible in reference

to historical facts, and much less in reference to personal facts,

unless these are connected with dogma. The subjects in whom this

attribute resides are the following:

1. The Supreme Pontiff, the head of the hierarchy, who, independent of

the rest, enjoys this attribute, in reference to all the objects above

explained. Because, by the interior organism of the church, as we

shall see, he is made the source of all authority in teaching and

governing.

2. The hierarchy, together with the Supreme Pontiff, either assembled

in council or agreeing through other means of communication.

We almost blush to have to remark that this, infallibility, centred in

the Pope or bishops, does not render them personally impeccable. The

two things are as distant as the poles, and can only be brought

together and confounded in minds who, according to the expression of

Dante, have lost the light of the intellect, and live in a darkness

which is little short of death.

The modes of exercising this attribute are three:

She is infallible as teacher, as witness, and as judge.

As teacher: when she proclaims and expounds to the faithful the

revelation of the Theanthropos.

As witness: when she affirms what belongs or does not belong to that

revelation.

As judge: when she pronounces final judgment on controversies and

disputes which arise in relation to revealed doctrines.

Having thus given a brief idea of all that belongs to the subject of

infallibility, it seems to us that no one who has understood the

nature and essence of the church, and the object for which it was

established, can fail to perceive not only the entire reasonableness,

but also the absolute necessity of such a doctrine.

We have said that the church in its active element is nothing less

than the Theanthropos himself, communicating the term of the

supernatural moment, which includes teaching, through the agency of

secondary agents, both physical and personal. The church, therefore,

under the aspect from which we are now regarding her, is the

Theanthropos teaching his revelation, expounding his revelation,

affirming and witnessing to his revelation, declaring what agrees

with it, and what is contradictory to it, through the agency of the 837

Supreme Pontiff, or of the Pontiff and the rest of the hierarchy. And

can anything be more reasonable than the assertion that she is

infallible? Protestantism has boasted, and boasts yet, of having

emancipated reason, of having brought it to the highest possible

degree of culture and development. But when will Protestantism begin

to exercise its vaunted reason?

Is it reasonable to suppose that the Theanthropos, the God made man,

the infallible wisdom of God, the very intelligibility of the Father,

who established the church, that is, united himself, either as to

action or substance, with a sacramental element, be it material or

personal, in order, among other things, to teach all men in time and

space what was absolutely necessary for them to know to attain their

ultimate perfection--is it reasonable to suppose, we say, that the

Theanthropos should, through his personal agents, teach anything but

absolute truth?

Deny the divinity of the Theanthropos, deny that the Theanthropos ever

did or could unite his activity with personal agents, deny the essence

of the church, and then you would be logical, then you would be

consistent, then we could understand you. But to admit that the

Theanthropos _is_ God, to admit that he _did_ unite his infinite and

divine activity to the sacramental element, to admit that he did so on

purpose to teach all men in time and space, and then to affirm that

the church is not and cannot be infallible--that is, that the

Theanthropos cannot teach infallibly through his personal agents--is

such a logic as only the highly cultivated reason of Protestantism can

understand. It is above the reach of that reason which is satisfied

with a moderate share of culture and refinement, and cannot claim to soar

so high.

We beg the reader to reflect for an instant on this single question:

Is it the Theanthropos, or is it not, who teaches through the agency

of his personal instruments? To this simple question, a simple answer

should be given. Say you answer, It is not. Then you deny that the

Theanthropos united his infinite energy to a sacramental element. Then

you deny the essence of the church, and, in denying that, you must

deny every other union between the infinite and the finite, as we have

demonstrated. If you say it _is_ the Theanthropos who teaches through

the agency of his personal instruments, then what can be more logical

or more consistent than to say that he teaches infallibly? What is

there more reasonable than to say that a God-man should know what is

truth, and should express his mind so, should embody it in an external

means so, as to represent that mind infallibly?

Then, why so much opposition against this plainest attribute of the

church? Why so much obloquy, so much sneering, except that the so

boasted Protestant reason is nothing but a vile, unmanly prejudice,

except that those who boast so much of exercising their reason

resemble those innocent and unconscious animals of which Dante speaks:

“As _sheep_, that step forth from their fold, by one

Or pairs, or three, at once; meanwhile, the rest

Stand fearfully, bending the eye and nose

To ground, _and what the foremost does that do

The others, gathering round her if she stops,

Simple and quiet, nor the cause discern_”?

--_Cary’s Translation._

The next attribute of the church is authority. This, like the rest,

flows from her very essence. That essence consists in being the

sacramental extension of Christ incorporating unto himself all human 838

persons in time and space, communicating to them the term of the

supernatural moment in its essence and faculties, and aiding them to

develop those faculties, and to bring them to their ultimate

completion. The church, therefore, as sacramental--that is, outward

and sensible extension of the Theanthropos intended for men--is a

visible, outward society of human persons with the Theanthropos. Now,

what does a visible society require? That the external relations of

the associates should be determined and governed by the authority

legitimately constituted in the society. For, if those relations were

not determined and directed by proper authority in a visible society,

it is evident that no order could be expected, and that all the

members could not form one moral body, by a proper external

communication. The church, therefore, as a visible society, must have

authority to determine all the external relations of the members, and

to govern and direct them.

This authority or power of establishing the external polity in the

church is, of course, essentially residing in the Theanthropos, who

communicates it whole and entire to the Supreme Pontiff, and through

him to the whole hierarchy and the rest of the active church.

Having vindicated the essential attributes of the church, we think it

necessary to dilate at some length upon the interior constitution, the

internal organism of the same, in order to exhibit a fuller and more

adequate idea of this masterpiece of the infinite. And in order to do

it thoroughly, we must give a cursory glance at its eternal type, the

supreme exemplar of everything--the Trinity. The reader will remember

that the genesis of God’s life takes place as follows: There is in the

infinite essence and nature a first subsistence, unborn, unbegotten,

which terminates in the first person. This is the supreme, active

principle of the second, and both are the active principle of the

third. In this third termination closes the cycle of infinite life.

The production of the second person is brought about by intellectual

generation. For the primary unbegotten activity, being infinitely

intelligent, can scan with his glance the whole depth, breadth,

height, and length of his infinite nature. Now, to intelligence means

to produce an intellectual image of the object which is understood.

Consequently, the primary unbegotten principle, by intelligencing

himself, produces an intellectual image, absolutely equal to himself,

the act of intelligencing being infinite, and also distinct from him,

inasmuch as they are opposed as principle and term. The first

contemplates himself in his substantial image, and is attracted toward

himself and his image. The second contemplates himself in his

principle, and is attracted toward himself and his principle. This

common, mutual attraction or love, being also infinite, is

consequently substantial, and results in a third termination of the

infinite essence.

From this brief explanation of the genesis of God’s life, it follows:

1st. That the infinite, though one in nature, has three distinct

terminations or persons.

2d. That, though these three persons are absolutely equal, because

possessed of the same identical nature, we find in them a necessary

subjection of order founded on the law of origin and production, the

second being originated by the first, and being in this respect

subject to him; the third being originated by both, and under this

respect being subject to both.

3d. The three persons, possessing the same identical nature and 839

substance, possess, consequently, all the perfections and attributes

flowing from the substance in the same identical manner. Hence they

possess in common all the metaphysical attributes of the substance,

such as infinity, eternity, immensity, immutability; all the

intellectual attributes, such as truth, wisdom, etc.; all the moral

attributes of the substance, such as goodness, etc.

4th. As nature is the radical principle of action and life, it follows

that, as the three persons possess the same nature, they possess one

identical action and life. But as the termination is the immediate

principle of action, and the three persons have a distinct

termination, their one identical action receives the impress of the

distinct termination of each.

5th. Finally, the essence being identical in all the three persons,

and the second and third being originated by an immanent action, and

all being essentially relative to each other, it follows that they all

live in each other by a common indwelling.

Now, the interior constitution, the internal organism, of the church

must be modelled, both in its active and passive moments, after this

supreme type of everything; always granting the necessary distance of

proportion intervening between the infinite and the finite. For, if

the whole cosmos is and must be fashioned after that supreme pattern,

how much more must the church, which is the inchoative and initial

perfection of the whole cosmos, the cosmos of personalities!

Consequently, we must find in its interior organism all the laws of

the genesis of God’s life--laws which in the whole cosmos are

reflected in those of _unity_, _variety_, _hierarchy_, _communion_.

And, first, as to the active moment of the church. As in the infinite

we find one nature and essence, the abyss of all perfections, the

_Being_, so in the active church we must find one nature and

essence, the reflex of the essence of God. And that one nature

consists in the fulness of the priesthood of the Theanthropos,

communicated to the whole active church in the sacrament of order, and

in the fulness of his authority.

As in the infinite the divine nature is possessed in common by a

multiplicity of persons, the three terminations constituting the

Trinity, so in the active church the priesthood of Christ and his

authority must be possessed in common by a multiplicity of persons,

some possessing it in its fulness, some partially, because distinction

in the finite is by gradation, and cannot be by perfect equality, but

all having the same identical priesthood as to its nature.

As in the Trinity, we find the law of hierarchy absolutely necessary

in organic and living beings, which hierarchy consists in this, that

the three divine persons, though absolutely equal as to nature, are

distinct as to personality--a distinction which arises from opposition

of origin. Now, this opposition of origin necessarily gives rise to a

hierarchical superiority of order; the Father as such being

necessarily superior in order to the Son, and the Son as such inferior

to him; both as the aspirants of the third person necessarily superior

to him, and _vice versa_.

Now, this hierarchical law must be found also in the church, and we

must find a superiority of one over the other, not merely of order,

but of gradation; the finite, as we have said, not being distinct

except by gradation of being. Hence, we find the Theanthropos to have

established three distinct elements constituting the hierarchy, and 840

organically brought together. The first, a primary principle of

authority from whom all receive, and he receives from none--the

Supreme Pontiff, his own vicar on earth, the visible head of the

church. The second, who receive from the first in measure and

limit--the episcopate, who receive from the Supreme Pontiff their

authority and its extent. The third, also, receive from both in a more

limited manner--the priesthood.[161]

As in the Trinity the divine nature, being the radical principle of

action and life, and the termination, the proximate principle, there

is one common action and life, but the same bearing the impress of the

constituent of each person; so in the church the authority being the

same as to nature, the Pontiff, the episcopate, and the priesthood

have one common life and action radically, but each one displaying it

according to the degree resulting from his dignity--the Pontiff in its

fulness, the episcopate within the range of their dioceses, the

priesthood within the limits appointed by the episcopate--the second

as holding it from the first, the third from both.

The reader can see by the theory we have just explained, and which

cannot be gainsaid, how the late definition of the infallibility of

the Supreme Pontiff is in accordance with and flows from the

principles we have laid down. The Pontiff in the church of Christ is

the first and primary visible principle of all authority, as in the

interior of infinite life the eternal Father is the first primary

principle of authority over the Son and the Spirit, as we have

explained above.

From the Pontiff all must receive authority, and he can receive from

none, as the Father in the internal organism of the infinite

communicates and receives from none. Consequently, the Supreme Pontiff

being the first, primary, supreme, visible principle of authority in

the church of Christ, is the first, primary, supreme, visible

teacher--the office of teaching being essentially included in the

fulness of authority communicated to him by Christ.

And as the office of teaching in the church of Christ would be of no

avail except it were endowed with the attribute of infallibility, it

follows that the Supreme Pontiff is the first, primary, supreme,

_infallible_ teacher in the church of Christ. He must teach all, and

can be taught by none. He teaches by himself the whole universal

church, and none has and can have any authority for disputing,

objecting to, and gainsaying his teaching.

We cannot perceive how any persons holding the supremacy and

independence of his authority could ever have reconciled with their

logic the dependence of his authority with reference to teaching.

We come to the interior organism of the passive church, to which the

active church also belongs in different relation, and we find in it

also a reflex of the Trinity.

For as in the infinite there is one nature common to all, communicated

by the first person to the second, and by both to the third, so in the

passive church we find the same nature, the term of the supernatural

moment, consisting in a higher similitude of and communication with

the Trinity; this term communicated by the active church; primarily by

the episcopate, and secondarily by the priesthood. 841

As in the Trinity, the nature being the same, the three persons

partake of all the attributes flowing from the nature, likewise, and

with due proportion in the church, the nature of the supernatural

moment being the same, all the members partake of the same attributes

and faculties flowing from that nature; hence they have one common

supernatural intelligence, one common supernatural will.

As the Trinity, the nature being the radical principle of action, and

the personality the proximate, all have the same action, but each acts

according to the constituent of his personality; so in the church, the

term of the supernatural moment, constituting its nature, being the

same, all have the same supernatural action and life; but personally,

some members belonging to the active church, and some to the passive,

it follows that those who belong to the first display that life in

that relation, and those who belong to the second display it in the

second relation.

As in the Trinity we find an indwelling of all the persons in each

other, and a living perpetual communication founded on the identity of

nature and on the relation of personalities; so in the church of

Christ we find a perpetual communication of its members with each

other, founded on the identity of nature, the term of the supernatural

moment, and on the relation of personalities, all members of the

passive church communicating with and living, as it were, in the

active church, because proceeding from it.

We see, therefore, what is the interior organism of the church. As to

the active church, the fulness of the priesthood of the Theanthropos

is given to the whole active church. The organism is constituted and

established by authority. The fulness of his authority is communicated

to one, the Supreme Pontiff, the visible head of the church. From him,

and from him alone, all others must receive authority. And hence the

unity of the whole active church, unity of authority, of action and

life, and the proper hierarchical order. The passive church is

established upon the bestowal of the supernatural nature and faculties

and acts. The two are brought together by the community of the same

supernatural nature, faculties, and acts; and, by the dependence of

origin, the second proceeding and being originated by the first. Both

have one common life and action, but hierarchically exercised, the

passive being governed and directed by the one which originates it,

and thus exhibiting a most perfect image of the Trinity.

We have only been commenting upon those words of the Theanthropos:

“Holy Father, keep these in thy name whom thou hast given me, that

they may be one, as we also are.” Here we have the necessity of the

church being modelled after the Trinity, the archetype of everything.

“As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the

world.” The common nature of the active church, the mission and

authority of the Theanthropos.

“And not for these only do I pray, but for all those who, through

their words, shall believe in me.” The continuation of that authority.

“Sanctify them in truth.” The common nature of the passive church, the

term of the supernatural moment.

“That they may be one, as thou Father in me and I in thee, that they

may be one in us.” The completion of the inchoative society, brought

about by the supernatural element of union, and by the incorporation 842

with the Theanthropos.

To complete the theory of the church, we have now to point out the

characteristic marks which distinguish it from any counterfeit

institution of men. These marks are four: unity, holiness,

catholicity, and apostolicity.

_Unity._ What is the church, viewed in its essence, attributes, and

interior organism? It is the Theanthropos annexing his infinite energy

and his substantial presence to a sacramental element, both physical

and personal, and through them first elevating human persons to a

supernatural being, with its essence and faculties of supernatural

intelligence and supernatural will in an incipient and inchoative

state; secondly, through his sacramental, personal element proposing

and expounding his _gnosis_ to their supernatural intelligence; by a

second sacramental moment elevating this supernatural essence and

faculties to a determinate and definite growth: by the sacramental

moment of his presence incorporating all elevated persons unto

himself, and thus putting them in immediate contact with himself, and

through him with the Trinity on one side and with all the cosmos in

nature and personality on the other side, and thus affording their

supernatural faculties proper objects on which they may feed, expand,

be developed, and arrive at their ultimate perfection. Finally, by the

personal sacramental element governing and directing all their

exterior relations and communication to one social final end; and all

this not in any particular spot or period of time, but in all space

and in all time. From this it is evident that the church of Christ is

_one_ in force of the unity of the Theanthropos with the sacramental

element; _one_ in consequence of the interior unity of organism, both

of the active and passive church; _one_ in consequence of the unity

of the supernatural being and faculties, the end of the church;

_one_ in force of the unity of the object of the supernatural

intelligence; _one_ in consequence of the unity of the object of the

supernatural will--God and his cosmos, in their relations to each

other; _one_ in consequence of the real communion and intercourse

between the members of the church; _one_, finally, in consequence of

the oneness of the visible government of the church, all emanating

from one invisible and one visible head.

The second distinctive mark of the church must be holiness. For the

end of the church is to impart to human persons in time and space the

term of the supernatural moment, together with its faculties, and

especially the faculty and habit of supernatural intelligence and

supernatural will or charity, in which, as we have demonstrated in the

tenth article, the very essence of holiness consists. If the church,

therefore, were deprived of this distinctive mark, she would fail in

that very object for which she was instituted.

But it is to be remarked that not any degree of holiness would be

sufficient to constitute a distinctive mark of the church, but a

certain fulness of it is required in some of its members, for a

twofold reason.

Like every moment of God’s exterior action, she is subject to the law

of variety by hierarchy. This involves the necessity of the church

ranging between the lowest degree of sanctity to the very pinnacle of

sublimest and loftiest exhibition of it; otherwise, those two laws

could not be realized.

Secondly, an ordinary degree of holiness can easily be counterfeited.

But none could for any length of time or any extension of space assume

a sanctity which soars far above the ordinary and common level, and 843

which exhibits itself as such. _Nemo personam diu fert_ could be

applied in this case more than in any other.

The next distinctive mark is _catholicity_ or _universality_. She is

such not only because she contains all truth; not only because she

embraces all the moments of God’s action, as the finishing stroke of

them all; but because she is intended for all time and all space.

Finally, the last mark is _apostolicity_. The first members of the

hierarchy chosen by the Theanthropos to communicate as moral

instruments the term of the sublimative moment, with the power and

authority to transmit to others that very same dignity of being moral

instruments, were the _apostles_. Therefore, that church alone can be

the church of the Theanthropos which to this day and for ever can show

that her own hierarchy are the legitimate successors of the apostles,

by an uninterrupted communication. For we have said that the essence

of the church is to be the Theanthropos acting in time and space,

through the agency of the hierarchy and other sacraments. Now, suppose

a hierarchy who cannot claim or make good their claim to be the

legitimate successors of the first ones who composed it, who could not

claim any communication or union with them, how could we suppose them

to be those very instruments in whom and through whom the Theanthropos

lives and acts?

Before we draw the consequence which follows from all we have said

concerning the church, it is necessary to recapitulate in a few words

all we have written in these articles.

We set out with the question of the infinite, and after refuting the

pantheistic idea of the infinite, and showing that pantheism in its

solution of the problem destroys it, we gave the Catholic idea of the

infinite. Here another problem sprang up--multiplicity in the

infinite. No being can be conceived endowed with pure, unalloyed

unity. It must be multiple, under pain of being inconceivable. What is

the multiplicity which can be admitted in the infinite? We

demonstrated that the pantheistic solution which says that infinite

becomes multiple by a necessary interior development, destroys both

terms, the unity and the multiplicity. We proceeded to lay down the

Catholic answer to the problem, and explained, as far as lay in our

power, the mystery of the ever-blessed Trinity. The question next in

order was the finite. And we showed the finite to be the effect of an

absolutely free act of infinite power, free both to its creation at

all and also with regard to the amount of perfection to be created;

though we admitted and proved that it was befitting on the part of the

Creator to effect the best possible manifestation of himself. Here we

found ourselves in face of a duality which claimed reconciliation. How

could the finite and the infinite be united together, so as to

preserve whole and entire the two respective natures, and at the same

time to effect the best possible manifestation of the infinite? We

answered by laying down the Catholic dogma of the hypostatic union,

which raised the finite to a hypostatic or personal union with the

infinite, and elevated finite natures to the highest possible dignity.

But as the hypostatic moment raised to a personal union only nature,

and left out personality, another duality arose: how to unite human

persons with the Theanthropos, and through him with God, and make them

partakers as far as possible of the dignity and elevation of the nature 844

hypostatically united to the _Word_. The sublimative moment

answered the question. This moment, medium between the Theanthropos

and substantial creation, by bestowing upon human persons a higher

nature and faculties, enabled them to unite in close contact with the

Theanthropos and through him with the Trinity. But what was the medium

chosen to transmit the term of the sublimative moment to human persons

in time and space? The Theanthropos himself, the essential mediator

between God and the cosmos; and to that effect he united his infinite

energy and his substantial presence to personal and physical

instruments, and through them imparted to human persons in time and

space the term of the sublimative moment; and thus the cycle of the

procession of the cosmos from the infinite was perfected in its being

and faculties, to begin a movement of return to the same infinite as

its supreme end. The sacramental extension of the Theanthropos in time

and space we have demonstrated to be the Catholic Church, and from its

essence we have drawn her essential attributes of visibility,

indefectibility, infallibility, and authority, and also its intrinsic

marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.

After this necessarily imperfect sketch of all our articles, we submit

to the reader this necessary consequence--_the Roman Catholic Church

is the only true church of God_.

First, because it is in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church

alone that the life of the intelligence is possible. We have shown

throughout our articles that in every question which the human mind

raises, there is no possible alternative--either embrace the Catholic

solution, so coherent with reason; or the pantheistic solution, and

the death of the intelligence. Now, when we speak of the Catholic

solution, we mean of the solution which is given by the church whose

head is the Bishop of Rome, for no other pretended Catholic Church

gives all the true solutions.

Second, because it is the Roman Catholic Church alone which knows her

own essence and attributes. All others are more or less ignorant of

the essence and attributes necessary to the church of the

Theanthropos.

Thirdly, it is to the Roman Catholic Church alone to which the

essence, attributes, and marks which we have shown _à priori_ to

belong necessarily to the Church of Christ apply. Consequently, the

Roman Catholic Church is the real cosmos of God in its perfection of

being and faculties, and men have no possible alternative but to join

it, to submit to its authority, under pain of the death of the

intelligence, of being a creature out of joint with the whole system

of God’s works, of being in the impossibility of attaining their last

end in palingenesia. The Roman Catholic Church or pantheism--all truth

or no truth--death or life here and hereafter.

[161] We have said _authority_ and not sacerdotal character,

because as to that there is no difference between the

Supreme Pontiff and the episcopate, but only between the

episcopate and the priesthood.

----------

THE LAST DAYS OF OISIN, THE BARD. 845

BY AUBREY DE VERE.

III.

OISIN’S YOUTH.

“Patrick! thy priests do ill to jeer,

Not me, but Oscar’s self, and Fionn:

Wise are they; but the dead are dear:

This deed is not well done.

“Who dares to say the King lies bound

By angel hosts in bonds abhorred?

Had these lain bound, great Fionn had found

And freed them with his sword!

“Had Fionn but heard thine Eve lament

The apple stol’n--the curse on men--

For _eric_ apples he had sent,

Shiploads threescore and ten!

“Likewise that serpent slain had he!

Fionn ever said this way was best,

To kill the bad that killed should be,

And be loving to the rest.

“Patrick, a pact with thee I make:

Because my warriors they deride,

With thee to heaven my father take,

And leave they priests outside!

“Patrick, this other boon I crave,

That I to thee in heaven may sing

Full loud the glories of the brave,

And Fionn, my sire and king!”--

“Oisin, in heaven the praises swell 846

To God alone from Soul and Saint:--”

“Then, Patrick, I their deeds will tell

In a little whisper faint!

“Who says that Fionn his sentence waits

In some dark realm, the thrall of sin?

Fionn would have burst that kingdom’s gates,

Or ruled himself therein!”

“Old man, for once thy chiefs forget”

(Thus oft the Saint his rage beguiled):

“Sing us thine own bright youth, while yet

A stripling, or a child.”

“O Patrick, glad that time and dear!

It wrought no greatness, gained no gain,

Not less those things that thou wouldst hear

Thou shalt not seek in vain.

“My mother was a princess, turned

By magic to a milk-white doe:--

Such tale, a wondering child, I learned:

True was it? Who can know?’

“I know but this, that, yet a boy,

I raced beside her like the wind:

We heard the hunter’s horn with joy

And left the pack behind.

“A strength was mine that knew no bound,

A witless strength that nothing planned:

When came the destined hour, I found

Some great deed in my hand.

“Forth from a cave I stept at Beigh:

O’er ivied cliffs the loose clouds rushed:--

With them I raced, and reached ere they

The loud seas sandhill-hushed.

“By Brandon’s cliff an eagle brown

O’erhung our wave-borne coracle:

I hurled at him my lance, and down

Like falling stars he fell.

“On that green shore of Ardrakese 847

An untamed horse I made my slave,

And forced him far o’er heaving seas,

And reinless rode the wave.

“Methinks my brow I might have laid

Against a bull’s, and there and then

Backward have pushed him up the glade,

And down the rocky glen!

“So ran my youth through dark and bright,

In deeds half jest. Their time is gone:

The glorious works of thoughtful might

For Oscar were, and Fionn.

“When met the hosts in mirth I fought:

My war-fields still with revel rang:

My sword with such a god was fraught

That, while it smote, it sang.

“My spear, unbidden, to my hand

Leaped, hawk-wise, for the battle’s sake:

Forth launched, it flashed along the land

With music in its wake.

“A shield I bore so charged and stored

With rage and yearnings for the fight,

When foes drew near it shook, and roared

Like breakers in the night:

“Then only when the iron feast

Of war its hungry heart had stilled,

It murmured, like a whispering priest

Or frothing pail new-filled.”

“Say, knew’st thou never fear or awe?”

Thus Patrick, and the Bard replied:

“Yea, once: for once a man I saw

Who--not in battle--died.

“I sang the things I loved--the fight--

The chance inspired that all decides--

That pause of death, when Fate and Flight

Drag back the battle tides:

“The swords that blent their lightnings blue-- 848

The midnight march--the city’s sack--

The advancing ridge of spears that threw

The levelled sunrise back.

“And yet my harp could still the storm,

Redeem the babe from magic blight,

Restore to human heart and form

The unhappy spell-bound knight.

“And some could hear a sobbing hind

Among my chords; and some would swear

They heard that kiss of branch and wind

That lulled the wild-deer’s lair!

“I sang not lies: where base men thronged,

I sat not, neither harped for gold:

My song no generous foeman wronged,

No woman’s secret told.

“I sang among the sea-side flocks

When sunset flushed the bowery spray,

Or when the white moon scaled the rocks

And glared upon the bay.

“My stately music I rehearsed

On shadowing cliffs, when, far below,

In rolled the moon-necked wave, and burst,

And changed black shores to snow.

“But now I tread a darker brink:

Far down, unfriendlier waters moan:

And now of vanished times I think;

Now of that bourn unknown.

“I strike my harp; I make good cheer;

Yet scarce myself can catch its sound:

I see but shadows bending near

When feasters press around.

“Say, Patrick of the mystic lore,

Shall I, when this old head lies low,

My Oscar see, and Fionn, once more,

And run beside that Doe?”

----------

LETTER OF MONSEIGNEUR DUPANLOUP, BISHOP OF ORLEANS, TO M. GAMBETTA. 849

FROM L’UNIVERS.

Sir: After having read the speech which you have recently delivered at

St. Quentin, I waited a few days to see if some one would come forward

and do justice to the words you uttered. But since they have been

allowed to pass without protest from any one, I will, albeit I have

not much taste for it, say what I have to say about them.

Your speech treats both of politics and religion, and you deal with

these two great matters as if you were bound very shortly to become

their lord and master. I shall not say much about your politics,

although their threatening character adds to the already grave anxiety

with which our poor country is burdened; but, as a bishop, I have a

right to call you to account for the war which you declare against the

church and against religion.

For war, indeed, it may be called, and accompanied with such

accusations and such outrageous insults, that, if your words were

true, we should deserve to be driven not only out of the school-house,

as you demand, but out of the church itself.

I must admit to have been at first misled by the apparent moderation

of your words. Taking interest, as I do, in conversions when they are

sincere, I asked myself, while reading your discourse, in which you

appeared to me so calm, so insinuating, and so circumspect, though at

the same time so devoid of modesty--I asked myself if the time had

come when the National Assembly was about to present the spectacle of

a reconciliation of parties in the presence of the image of an ideal

republic. What abundance of honey flowed from your lips! Even at

times, how much toleration in your maxims!

In this statement, this programme, this message, the manifesto, or by

whatever name it should be called, which you addressed to your

assembled guests at St. Quentin, you proceed in this wise:

You call for “a strong and stable government, that will vigilantly

protect the interests of _all_, and be able to _regenerate the morals_

of the French family.” On this point, sir, we certainly all agree.

This government, you go on to say, will pacify souls, bring the social

classes closer to one another, and will restore to France her rank in

Europe. This is also very fine. But let us see further.

To bring about this end, you appeal even to the disabused voters of

the _plébiscite_; even to the legitimists, who, by their wealth and

education, are to be the _ornament of the state_; even to the

conservative men, who are to be as a bridle of restraint on a policy

which your friends are to urge forward.

And what is to be this policy? The _policy of labor_, very different

from the policy of conquest, the triumph of the _idea of justice_ in

the fulfilment of social duties. I cannot forbear remarking here that

these expressions, _policy of labor_, _idea of justice_, are in daily 850

use by the _Internationale_, and not in a sense particularly intended

to tranquillize society. But let us go on.

But this form of government, this policy, how is its establishment to

be brought about? Why, by universal suffrage, that foremost of rights,

that sole and sovereign tribunal, that army of peace. And how is

universal suffrage to be persuaded and drawn to the desired end? By

giving to public opinion, through _democratic intermingling_, proofs

of the _morality_, the _political value_, and the _adaptation_ for

_business_ of the republican party; by demonstrating that the _republican

government is the most liberal of all forms of government_, etc.

Really, sir, all this must have appeared admirable to your audience,

and, if your republic is of that sort, many of our most upright

conservatives will tell you: Let us clasp hands, for that is the very

republic which the National Assembly, acting with and through M.

Thiers, is endeavoring to realize at the cost of so much self-denial,

disinterestedness, and honesty.

But let us be frank.

You have no right to claim that your republic answers this

description. Your sweetness is purely oratorical and Platonic; for two

sentences of your address reveal you and show who you are.

“No one,” you say, “must ever give his opinion except as a means of

adding to the general good; and each one must convert his mind into,

as it were, a memorandum tablet for himself, in which he puts down,

with a view of obtaining them, the institutions which the people have

a right to expect from the democratic republic.”

If a priest had uttered these words, which seem more befitting the lips

of an Italian than of a Frenchman, he would be charged with hypocrisy

and mental reservation. It would be said that he is playing saint;

that he is concealing his game by not revealing his innermost

thoughts. But everything is forbidden to the cleric, while to the

radical any and everything is allowed. This everybody knows. I confine

myself to merely quoting this first sentence, without further dwelling

on its merits; and I pass on to a second one, which gives me a right,

not only to suspect you, as in the case of the former one, but to make

a direct attack on you; its tenor is as follows:

“What I have done in the past is the true pledge of what I will do in

the future, toward definitively establishing the republic.”

It is here, sir, that I must challenge you.

In the first place, I have to express my amazement that, having to

account to your country, under so grave a responsibility, and for

misdeeds for which you might have been rendered far more seriously

liable, you can be so ready to accuse others and to glorify yourself,

that you go so far as to dare to say: “What I have done in the past is

the true pledge of what I will do in the future.”

What have you done in the past?

You were a young lawyer, and were turned all of a sudden, and in

consequence of a tumultuous lawsuit, into a political character. The

audacity of your revolutionary opinions enabled you to become a

candidate for the Corps Législatif, and in the next place to take your

seat as a deputy by the side of your friends Blanqui, Raspail, and

Rochefort.

On the 4th September, you seized upon the governing power, and,

without consulting with your colleagues, you assigned to yourself the

Ministry of the Interior. Did you, as soon as you got into the 851

ministry, extend to all good citizens those arms which you seem now to

be opening so widely? Not at all. In the Hôtel de Ville,[162] you

installed such men as Etienne Arago, Ferry, and Rochefort; in the

_mairie_, such characters as Delescluze, Mottu, Bonvalet, Clémenceau;

in the _préfectures_, such as Duportal, Engelhard, and Jacobins of

all sorts. You filled these places with your friends--your friends

only, and these of the most excitable kind. Afterward, when your

colleagues, in order to get rid of you, were so signally weak as to

give you the entire realm to operate upon, when, through a fortunate

contingency, you had suddenly entrusted to you that magnificent part

which, to a heroic and truly patriotic heart, would have been

unsurpassable, what did you do? You sought rather to force the

republic--your republic--on the country than to save France. It is

well for you to talk about universal suffrage. You have treated it as

naught. By a first decree, you broke up the _conseils-généraux_, and

did not re-establish them. By a second decree, you adjourned the

elections. By a third decree, you abridged the legal qualifications

for election. What have you, sole ruler everywhere obeyed, done with

the treasure, the men, and the blood of her children which the nation

lavished upon you? Was it not a republican who called your fatal rule

the _dictatorship of incompetency_?

Though only three months in power, you had become almost a greater

burden upon us than the late Imperial Government; and when you assert

that the National Assembly has completed its work, which was to put an

end to the war, you forget that the Assembly had received from France

not one mandate only, but three. The Assembly had, and has still,

given it the charge to rid our country of the Prussians, of

demagoguism, and of yourself.

After the dreadful catastrophes in which the Empire sank to ruin, do

you know, sir, what proved to be France’s greatest misfortune?

It was that just then, in that so terrible a crisis, you stood the

absolute master of France. I make no reference to the two aged men who

were at Tours with you. It was from you, a lawyer, that our generals

received their orders; it was you who dictated plans for campaigns; it

was you who scattered our forces, and blindly hurled our armies right

and left, multiplying your lying bulletins, and at the same time and

to the same extent as our reverses.--But I must turn away my thoughts

from those disasters, as also from the remembrance of those poor

soldiers, without clothes, without shoes, without food, without

ammunition! How great an organizer, my dear sir, you proved yourself

to be! How fortunate you turned out to have been in the selection of

your contractors for supplies!

Nevertheless, the nation, ever generous, might have measurably

accepted, as an offset to this, your personal activity, and your

efforts, although unsuccessful; it had given you credit for having

withdrawn yourself momentarily; but you reappeared too quickly, only a

short time before the day when the Commune of Paris was putting

forward your friends, your lieutenants, your teachers, or your

disciples, such as Delescluze and Millière, Rigault and Ranc, Cavalier

and Mottu, all those fellows who have made themselves as ignominious 852

and ridiculous as possible, some of whom are still around you; in

fine, all that party which you have never, even to the extent of a

single word, disavowed, and the members of which you called upon to

give evidence of their morality, their political worth, and their

aptitude for the business of government! That evidence has been given,

and really, sir, you rely too much on the frivolity, the folly, or the

credulity of the public. You preach to it about a debonair republic,

but that public has not forgotten the grotesque, ruinous republic,

accompanied with bloodshed, which during six months was fastened on

France.

You have avoided with prudent care to call your republic _social_ as

well as _democratic_; and why? In order to enjoy the happiness of a

fleeting hour of dictatorship, I suppose it is worth your while to run

the risk of more calamities. Alas! unfortunate land, fated to be thus

perpetually the dupe and the victim of most guilty ambition!

No, in spite of all that you may say or leave unsaid, your promises

are contradicted by our memories. We need, in order to be persuaded,

something else than sonorous words. It is true that, in one point

only, you depart from the vague style of your programme. You declare

that you seek, above all things, to lay the foundation of the future

of democracy on a reform, to wit, in education; and with this idea,

you proclaim that you and your friends are alone capable, alone

worthy, to bring up youth. You seek to turn out _just_, _free_,

strong-minded and able men. This is very fine. But how? By means of a

national education given after a _truly modern_ and _truly democratic_

manner.

And here you dare to affirm that the church and preceding governments

have done nothing for public instruction, that they view every person

who knows how to read as an enemy, and you claim to reform the world

with your schools.

Allow me to reply that in this matter you are taking advantage of

ignorance instead of combating it. For it argues a singular reliance

on the ignorance of an audience to attempt to make it swallow at one

and the same time, and in the same sentence, calumny and nonsense.

The governments that have ruled France for the past sixty years have

in that period established more than 50,000 schools, and have trebled

the appropriations for primary instruction.

As to the church, she is founded on two things: a book, the Gospel,

and a divine command, to wit: _Ite et docete_, Go and teach. This

sentence, which has become commonplace, “_Ignorance is the source of

all evils_,” was uttered by a pope, and he added besides, “_particularly

among the working-classes_.” These were the words of Benedict XIV.,

uttered more than a century before you were born.

The calumny is consequently shown to be dull-witted, and the nonsense

still more so. It would seem that you also, M. Gambetta, hope, by

means of schools, to stamp your effigy on future generations, just as

if they were coin. But men versed in the subject know, and experience

shows, that such a design is absurd, and may become a horrid tyranny.

The instruction, whether primary or secondary, even with as much as

you can add to it of the higher sciences, such as algebra, chemistry,

etc., will not produce morals; and the parties who flatter the

teachers expect, after all, much more from their influence on voters

than from their action on their scholars.

Would you like to know what above all things, exerts an influence on 853

the family and on society? It is education, whether it be moral or

immoral, religious or atheistic. And do you know why I mistrust your

reform? Because it will be neither a moral nor a religious one.

In sober truth, what sort of tuition is a _really modern_, a _really

democratic_, one? Is there such a thing as modern geometry? a democratic

grammar? moral teachings of recent growth, and a geography not yet

published? All these big words are but windy oratory, empty and

obscure, which affords no meaning to the mind when it attempts to

analyze it.

Nevertheless, after having thrown off these sentences to your hearers,

you go on and recite the mottoes of the party, the watchword of the

day. It is a pity that you left out tithes and forced service under

feudal law. You say tuition is to be _free of cost_--that is

equivalent to adding thirty millions to our budget of expenditure;

but what does that signify? You have managed to spend a large sum

besides. The poor will pay for the rich; but the lower classes will

delude themselves with the belief that they are not paying at all, and

that they are indebted to you for the benefaction. Tuition is besides

to be _compulsory_. Well, let it be so, if you can devise some

adequate sanction for the contemplated enactments, a reliable

protection for the liberty of families, and, in particular, a reliable

guarantee for the teachers, so that you can feel sure enough of them

to venture, without practising the most abominable of all tyranny, to

compel parents to entrust to them, what they prize most in this world,

their children. But then, minor details do not stop you. To conclude,

the tuition is to be by _laymen_--and now the cat is let out of the

bag.

It is an easy matter to attack and calumniate absent priests,

religious who make no defence. To do so is neither fair nor generous,

but much popularity is to be got in that way in your party, and the

hard flings at the church will offset the sweetness displayed toward

other persons. So let us strike hard on this spot. The church is

henceforward to be separated from the state--that is not enough, the

church is besides to be separated from the school, and the school from

all religion.

You have said, sir, that your republic would be a liberal one. If you

accordingly begin by excluding from the common right to teach an

entire class of citizens and of women, solely because their religious

belief is not the same as yours, do not call yourself liberal, and do

not charge the church with being intolerant, or else be logically

consistent, and separate the _state from the school_. For the state,

in this connection, means the budget; that is to say, the moneys which

are got of all of us by taxation. You cannot, without being

tyrannical, compel families to send their children to the school of

the state. Lay aside these high-sounding phrases, and call things by

their right names. By the church you mean _us_. By the state you mean

yourself. To deprive us and our doctrines of our money, in order to

bestow it on yourself and your doctrines--that is what is called

separating the church from the state. But I feel pretty easy as to the

choice families will make when I learn from you what the programme of

this teaching is to be.

The programme is this: “It is an extensive and varied one, so that,

instead of mutilated learning, man will have dealt out to him

_entire truth_, so that _nothing which the human mind can grasp_ will 854

be concealed from him.” _De omni re scibili!_ Well, that is wonderful

indeed! No doubt you will have the power to create minds capable of

taking in this encyclopædia! You are equal to so many undertakings! So

that which you have in view, gratuitous, compulsory, lay tuition,

integral besides for every one and complete to an impossible

degree--this is the formula of socialism, and is also the formula of

absurdity.

“In the schools,” you add, “children will be taught scientific

_truth_ in its rigor and _its majestic simplicity_,” and by this

process “you will have reared citizens _whose principles will rest on

the same bases on which our entire society is founded_.”

What do you mean by these big words? What are these _principles_? what

are these _bases_? Whether it be that _those principles rest on these

bases_, or that these bases are fast to those principles, how much of

this will you teach to children from the ages of seven to eleven

years? I call upon you to give me plainly the text of the _programme

of science_ which our worthy village teachers, who are to seek to

instil into children of from seven to eleven years the sense of duty

and sacrifice, will have to substitute for the Ten Commandments of

God, and for the sublime and popular Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What is it, pray, sir, that renders you so ungrateful towards the

voters of Paris or of Lyons, who nearly all have been educated by the

Brothers, so severe on the priests, who perhaps have done something

for your early education, and so unjust towards the church?

It is my duty to insist on this point, and to protest against your

calumnies.

What! though the clergy of France have devoted themselves, as they have

done, to the service of our soldiers and our prisoners, and though

when, only four months ago, our chaplains and our Brothers of the

Christian Schools had served and died on the battle-fields, and though

all our female religious have devoted themselves to the care of our

ambulances, you have the heart to come and tell us that we are no

longer French! And it is immediately after the massacre of the

hostages that you repeat these calumnies, and represent us as

constituting for modern society “the greatest peril.” Such are your

very words, and you hold us up anew to the blind fury of our enemies.

And you direct your calumnies not against us alone, but, besides,

against the Pope. Ah! I admit, the horrors, treachery, meanness, and

falsehood by which he has been surrounded during the past twenty-five

years have not brought him to look with favor on the charms of that

sham liberty which you promise him, and he may well fail to admire

that Garibaldi for whose sake you, perhaps, sacrificed our army of the

East. But in the Encyclical which your hearers have never read, the

Pope has not condemned the various forms of government as they exist

in the laws of various nations. He has condemned liberty unrestrained,

rights without countervailing duties, and societies that know not God.

As to the family and property, sir, is it becoming _your_ friends to

style themselves their virtuous defenders?

But what is singular in this pell-mell gathering of confused and

incoherent ideas, is your alleged motive for denying to French priests

the right to teach which belongs to them in common with all their

fellow-countrymen: “When you have appealed to the energies of men

reared by such teachers, when you seek to arouse in them ideas of 855

sacrifice, of devotedness, of patriotism, you will find that you have

to deal with an emasculated, debilitated class of men.” And the reason

you assign for the emasculation and debilitation of this class reared

under our care is still more singular: it is because _we teach them to

believe in Providence_, and because teachers that believe in Providence

_are only fit to emasculate and debilitate the human race_. At this

point, sir, you set “the doctrine which accustoms the mind to the idea

of a Providence” in opposition to “revolution, which teaches the

authority and responsibility of the will of man and free agency.” But,

sir, these things are not incompatible with one another. Both are

taught by Christian doctrine, and, by setting them in opposition as

you do, you show that you neither understand yourself nor the matters

of which you are treating.

But you, who do not believe in Providence, and who are consequently

neither emasculated nor debilitated, do you know of any other belief

that can better teach mankind to bear with life and brave death? You

have this year ordered many men to rush to destruction. Would you have

dared to recommend our soldiers to go forth to meet death, mocking

God? And do you believe that the souls of the Pontifical Zouaves, and

of the Breton _francs-tireurs_, were enervated by their faith in

Providence?

But be cautious. In order that your reasoning be consistent, a belief

in Providence appertains not to priests alone, but to whoever

professes the Christian faith; consequently, if priests are to be

banished from the schools because they teach that emasculating dogma,

then all Christians must be kept out as well, and henceforward you

must exact from every teacher and every professor not to believe in

Providence.

Avow, sir, that seldom have calumnies and absurdities been mixed up

together with greater facility than you have done in these words of

yours.

Nevertheless, you manage to go on still further, and you attempt to

create a division between the _higher clergy_, whom you traduce, and

those whom you call the lower clergy, whom you flatter, by endeavoring

to excite them to envy. You labor in vain, sir; and, besides, I do not

recognize any lower clergy as such. The rank of the priesthood is the

highest to which we can attain; no bishop, not even the Pope himself,

has a sacerdotal character different from that of the most humble

priest. All ecclesiastical dignities are, in one sense, beneath the

title of priest, which leads to the highest offices and dignities of

the church. So that, in this regard, it may be said that no

institution is so democratic as the church. Sprung from the people as

we nearly all of us are, educated together and fed together on the

words of him who died for the people, we will suffer ourselves to be

neither divided nor deceived.

Our fraternity is of the right sort. Our God is the true God, and you

are without any. Be sincere, sir: come out of this mere talk, and

answer me plainly and without oratorical precaution, whether, yes or

no, _the free thought_ in which you are a believer, and _human science,

which, according to you, has nothing to equal it_, recognize the

existence of a personal and living God? Candor leaves you no

alternative but to reply. Either dare to declare to your friends that

you do believe, or dare to proclaim to our land that you do not

believe, in God.

If indeed your sham science denies God, I pity you, sir; but you must 856

admit that it hardly becomes you to talk about religion, and to

endeavor to beguile and divide priests who have consecrated their

lives to him. You assert that, if they dared to disclose their

convictions, they would own themselves democrats. Do you know what our

village priests would tell you if they were to make disclosures to

you? They would inform you that in every hamlet is to be found a

handful of petty rhetoricians, tavern orators, fellows who lead

municipal councils, who drive away the Christian Brothers and Sisters

of Charity, and do their best to deprive the curate of the small

pittance without which he cannot subsist, who forbid teachers to take

children to Mass, refuse to have churches repaired that need it most,

recommend mutual-guarantee-association marriages and burials, and know

no better way of serving a republic than by hating priests and by

persevering in a low and silly infidelity. Now, in every village these

very rhetoricians are your friends.

It is with their assistance that you contemplate establishing that

education, “national and truly modern,” in which, in order to teach

children “their duties as citizens, to excite in them ideas of

sacrifice, of devotion to country, to make out of them an

unemasculated race,” you will have not only to avoid speaking to them

of God and of _Providence_, but besides to combat and root out of their

minds the idea of _Providence_, and, in fine, to force upon French

youth a _teaching without religion_, and a moral instruction without

God.

Well, would you have me tell you what such education will turn out for

you? Instead of rearing men, it will give us monsters, and a learned

barbarism, armed with abundant means of destruction, barbarism in the

heart and in manner--in a word, just what we have witnessed during the

reign of the Commune; young men and girls from eighteen to

twenty-three years old ruling Paris and destroying it by incendiarism;

and, lo, it is after having witnessed such scenes of horror and the

lessons which they teach, that you have nevertheless ventured to

deliver the address to which I am replying, and your audience went so

far as to applaud your words!

In my view, this latter fact is an indication of the disorder in which

at this very moment we still are. No, the end of France’s afflictions

is not yet!

But I have said enough, sir. I have sought, as the only reply to your

harangue, to put facts in opposition to words. I have sought, while

replying to you, to defend the church; and I think I have at the same

time defended public peace. In theory, as against this or that

government, neither my faith, my reason, nor my patriotism would raise

great objections, were it not that I have seen your party at work, and

that my sight is still filled with those sombre scenes, and my memory

with the recollection of your deeds. In vain do you try to cover them

over with clever words and honeyed insinuations. My knowledge of the

preacher spoils the effect of the sermon on me. And my recollection of

the whilom dictator puts me on my guard against the impressiveness of

the candidate who is aspiring not to establish liberty, as he

pretends, but to destroy religion and to get into power. You are not

an apostle, you are a pretender. _The republic is I!_--that is your

programme and the sole object of your discourse. Well! depend upon it,

France has a republican government now, the need of a change to another,

even though accompanied with the advantage of having you for its 857

president, is not at all felt.

Please accept, sir, with the expression of my regret to be compelled

to thus combat you, that of the sentiments of respect which, as your

colleague, I have the honor to offer you.

[Illustration: Maltese Cross] FELIX, Bishop of Orleans,

Deputy at the National Assembly for the

Department of Loiret.

[162] The Hôtel de Ville is the seat of head municipal

authority for the city of Paris; the _mairies_ are the

subordinate seats of local authority for the arrondissements

into which Paris is divided.--TRANSLATOR.

----------

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

THE ARIANS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. By John Henry Newman, formerly

Fellow of Oriel College. Third Edition. London: E. Lumley. For

sale by The Catholic Publication Society, New York.

This work was written in 1832, and saw the light in the following

year. The author had already made his mark in Oxford as a keen and

deep thinker, as a scholar of wide and accurate erudition, and as a

clear and vigorous writer. He was a prominent leader in the Oxford or

Puseyite movement, and was, as we know from his _Apologia_, a stanch

Anglican. The work, looked for at the time with interest, was received

as fully equal to the high reputation of the author. Its singularly

lucid treatment of a subject involving the most abstruse questions of

ancient theological controversy, as well as the intricate and shifting

phases of a very eventful period of ecclesiastical history, was a

valuable addition to English theological literature. The author had

evidently thrown his soul into the work. The history he was treating

seemed to him to present many points of parallelism to their own

living struggle in the Anglican Church. The Anomœans and kindred Arian

sects were representatives of the Socinianism which had reached even

the highest dignities, and the rationalism and humanitarianism which

were beginning to spread among the clergy and the laity of its fold.

The Semiarians with their compromises and varying phrases and formulas

of faith, which might mean much or little, as each one chose to

understand them, were equally good representatives of the modern Broad

Church compromisers. The Eusebians, ever seeking to bask in the

imperial favor, and to guide or to wield the civil power for their own

interests, were the type of the modern Erastians, who look for nothing

higher than an act of parliament or an exercise of the royal

supremacy. And the continual assumption of ecclesiastical authority by

the Arian and Semiarian emperors in the fourth century, and their

often tyrannical action towards faithful bishops and clergy, who would

not give to Cæsar the things that are God’s, made the Puseyites think

of the enthralled condition of their “own branch,” in which the

sovereign claims and exercises the exclusive right of appointing the

archbishops and bishops, and of deciding finally all questions of

doctrine, discipline, or church law, and without whose sanction

convocations cannot meet, nor synods be held or pass decrees. In the

fourth century, the church, though long and sorely pressed, ever

struggled on, and finally succeeded in vindicating her own liberty,

and casting the heresy out of her fold. It was hoped that the example

might teach them how their English Church might similarly struggle and

eventually triumph.

A few years sufficed to convince Dr. Newman that such hopes were futile, 858

and that his position was false. He and others sought refuge in the

fold of the true church. Meanwhile, within the Anglican Church, the

successive decisions in the Gorham case and in several other cases

that have since come before the Privy Council, show that the evils he

lamented and feared have increased in strength, while the power of

opposing them has grown gradually weaker.

The present is a third edition of the work under the care of the

author; we can scarcely say, revised by him. German professors, in

publishing successive editions of their works on any subject to which

they devote continuous study, have no scruple in retracting,

cancelling, or directly confuting what they had previously published,

as often as they may be led to change their opinions on material

points, so much so that you must be sure you have the right edition

before you can quote it. We turned to this edition to see if Dr.

Newman had followed such a course. He has not. With him, _litera scripta

manet_. The book is the same now as when it first appeared. In a few

instances he changes the structure of a sentence, that his thought may

stand out more clearly. He has added a few more references in the

foot-notes, scrupulously indicating such additions by enclosing them

in brackets. He has enlarged the table of contents at the beginning

and the chronological table at the end of the volume. No change has

been made affecting the opinions, sentiments, or speculations of the

original edition. There are expressions which now, of course,

displease him as a Catholic; but he lets them hold their place. He has

cast out only two sentences, as needlessly put in originally, and even

these he has, in signal humility, pilloried, as it were, in a page by

themselves at the end of the appendix. This appendix, at the close of

the volume, is mostly made up of extracts from subsequent works of his

own, and are intended to throw further light on several points touched

on in the original work.

The volume presents an admirable critical, theological, and historical

summary of the whole Arian controversy in the fourth century, and was

a turning-point in English Protestant literature on the subject. Dr.

Newman was the first to establish what has since been generally

accepted, that Arianism was connected, historically and

intellectually, with the Judaic Aristotelic schools of thought

prevailing at Antioch and through Asia Minor, and not, as had been

previously held by many, with the Platonic schools of Alexandria.

The work deserves and will amply reward a careful study. The Catholic

reader will, of course, find himself in something of a Protestant

atmosphere. The authority and action of the Roman Pontiffs is scarcely

glanced at. Twice or thrice reference is made to the important support

which the Roman See gave to St. Athanasius, and to the determined

resistance which honorably distinguishes the primitive Roman Church in

its dealing with heresy, and the ground is taken that the acute and

sophistical training of the Eastern intellects led them to indulge in

abstruse distinctions and discussions which the calmer and more

practical minds of the Western Church entered into with difficulty,

and could scarcely express in their Latin tongue, so much less pliable

than the Greek. Theologically speaking, as well as historically, the

controversy in the fourth century was Eastern, rather than Latin.

Still, we are sure that, were Dr. Newman to write afresh this history,

now that he is a Catholic, the important part acted by the Roman

Pontiffs would be more strongly set forth. Writing as a Protestant, he

was sufficiently emphatic on the case of Liberius--so much so that he

has added a footnote to say that there is a difference among writers 859

which was the Sirmian formula that Liberius subscribed; and the

appendix further shows that there is also a discrepancy as to the

number and the chronological order of the various formulas, and that

in some cases alterations and additions were subsequently made in the

original text. It might also be added that there are grave reasons for

doubting the fact of any such subscription by Liberius, inasmuch as

the charge seems to have been first put forth by heated

controversialists long after his death, and is scarcely reconcilable

with the undoubted facts of his life after the date of the alleged

subscription.

Here and there the Catholic will meet phrases implying or stating some

special Anglican view or Protestant principle. To all these Dr.

Newman’s present position is a practical and sufficient refutation. In

the clear and lucid arrangement of the topics, in accurate and subtile

tracing of the various and varying forms of the Arian heresy, and in

the vivid portraying of that greatest and most earnest battle in the

early life of the church, the work is worthy of Dr. Newman, and claims

a place in every theological library.

MEMOIR OF ULRIC DAHLGREN. By his Father, Rear-Admiral Dahlgren.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1872.

Though war, in whatever light we may view it, cannot but be considered

a national calamity, it must be admitted that it has a tendency to

generate certain mental and social qualities which are unknown or of

slow growth in civil life. Personal courage, disinterested friendship,

and patient self-sacrifice, no mean qualities in themselves, are

doubly valuable when enlisted in the cause of one’s country on the

side of law and justice, and hence we consider the soldier, no matter

what may be his rank, who bravely and intelligently risks and loses

his life in defence of his nation’s integrity, deserving of a high

meed of praise. Young Dahlgren, the subject of this memoir, was one

of this character, and though he had scarcely attained the years of

manhood at the time of his death, in his attempt to liberate the Union

prisoners in Richmond, in 1864, he had risen from civil life to the

rank of colonel, and had repeatedly distinguished himself for his

skill, tact, and heroism. The account of his short but eventful career

was written by his father, the late Admiral Dahlgren, and is now

published under the auspices of his stepmother, the gifted widow of

that naval hero. It is very minute in details, and composed with a

richness of coloring and a warmth of affection such as might be

anticipated of a fond and gallant father in describing the deeds of a

son in every way worthy of him. During his short military career,

Colonel Dahlgren made many friends, some of whom survive him, who will

be glad to be put in possession of the particulars of his brilliant

and edifying career.

THE INTERNATIONALE--COMMUNISM. A Lecture by Rev. F. P. Garesche,

S.J., of St. Louis University. St. Louis: P. Fox. 1872.

This is a lecture both logical and eloquent. The learned Jesuit traces

Communism to Protestantism through materialism and false civilization.

He shows its horrid and dangerous nature, and administers a

well-merited castigation to that arch-agitator and firebrand of

mischief, Wendell Phillips, who has made himself its apologist. All

persons ought to read this, and especially those who pretend to call

themselves Catholics, and yet, by joining Masonic or other condemned

societies, have renounced their allegiance to the church and become

accomplices in the conspiracy against religion and society. Every good

Catholic who reads it will have his horror deepened against this

conspiracy in all its forms, and will learn what estimate is to be

placed on those who seek to palliate and extenuate doctrines and acts 860

which have been condemned by the Holy See.

LENTEN SERMONS. By Paul Segneri, of the Society of Jesus. Vol. I.

12mo, pp. 361. New York: The Catholic Publication House,

9 Warren St.

This is a translation of a portion of the celebrated _Quaresimale_, or

course of forty sermons for Lent, of Father Paul Segneri, S.J., who

was one of the most remarkable missionaries that the church has

produced, and also a man of great sanctity and austerity of life.

These discourses are models of eloquence, and lose but little of their

original force by the translation, which is a very good one. They are

fourteen in number; but it is intended that the remaining ones shall

be published, should the present volume meet with sufficient

encouragement. They are admirable examples of what sermons for Lent,

or for a mission, should be, and will be of great assistance to

clergymen. They are now for the first time made easily accessible to

the American public. The volume is of a convenient size, and well

printed, and such as we can in every way commend to the attention of

our readers.

THE SPOUSE OF CHRIST: Her Privileges and Her Duties. Vol. I. By the

author of _St. Francis and the Franciscans_, etc., etc. Boston:

Patrick Donahoe. 1872.

This is a volume of spiritual conferences or reading, specially

intended for female religious. The piety and talent of its authoress

are well known to the Catholic world. The present work has the

_imprimatur_ of the Bishop of Kerry, accompanied by a handsome

tribute to the writer.

THE VESSELS OF THE SANCTUARY: A Tale of Normandy.--THE

INHERITANCE. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co. 1872.

Two charming little stories, translated from the French. We can

heartily recommend them as affording pleasant and instructive reading

for children.

“The Catholic Publication Society” has just published in _Tract_ form

the _Pastoral Letter_ of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland on the

School Question. The price of this document is $3 00 per 100 copies.

The same Society will also publish in pamphlet form _Several Calumnies

Refuted, or Executive Document No. 37_. This will also be sold at $3 00

per 100. No less than 100 copies of either of these pamphlets will be

sold at any one time.

“The Catholic Publication Society” has just issued a list of new books

to be published by the Society this spring. It comprises fifteen books

altogether. These are: _Lenten Lectures_, by Father Segneri; _The

Liquefaction of the Blood of St. Januarius_; _Sermons on Ecclesiastical

Subjects_, Vols. II. and III., by Archbishop Manning; _French Eggs,

in an English Basket_; _Little Pierre, the Pedlar of Alsace_,

illustrated by twenty-seven first class woodcuts; _Maggie’s Rosary_;

_Constance Sherwood_, by Lady Fullerton, illustrated; _The House of

Yorke_, with illustrations; _The Eighth Series of Sunday-School

Libraries_, illustrated; _The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier_,

by Rev. H. J. Coleridge, S.J.; _Madame de Chantal and Her Family_;

_St. Jerome and his Correspondents_; _Bibliographia Catholica

Americana_, by Rev. J. M. Finotti--this book is published by

subscription; and _The Men and Women of the Protestant Reformation in

England_. All these books, as soon as ready, will be announced in our

_Literary Bulletin_, as well as all other new Catholic books published

in this country or in England.

Mr. P. O’shea, New York, announces as in press, _Lectures on the

Church_, by Rev. D. W. Merrick, S.J., of St. Francis Xavier’s Church,

New York.

Received: _Landreth’s Rural Register and Almanac_--1872. Published for

gratuitious distribution. David Landreth & Son, 21 South Sixth St.,

Philadelphia, Pa.

Transcriber’s Note:

Volume 14 contains six monthly issues of the publication. At the

bottom of the first page of each issue is a notice that it was entered

into the Library of Congress. This notice was moved to follow the

issue number and date.

Page numbers are displayed in the right margin. Footnotes and anchors

were renumbered sequentially. The footnotes were moved to the end of

the article, poem, or item. There are three anchors for Footnote 113.

Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like

this_.

A column header key was added before the table on page 513 so that the

display of the table would fit many e-reader screens.

Unprinted punctuation and accents, missing spaces between words, and

missing letters were added where appropriate. Duplicate letters and

words, where text continued from one line to the next, were removed.

On page 404, ‘Pharao’ was changed to ‘Pharaoh’ for consistency with

other instances in the article. In the Contents, under the entry of

‘Catholicity and Pantheism’ the page number was changed from 829 to

830. On page 504, the anchor for Footnote [110] is missing; it was

added where it may likely have belonged. On page 530, italic markup

was twice added to ‘aqua fortis’ for consistency with the remaining

text. Obsolete, archaic, and other misspelled words were not changed.