Chapter X: Front Matter (10)

We heartily congratulate all who may be interested in the study or execution of Gregorian chant upon the production of this work. Within a very few years the study of the holy chant of St. Gregory has occupied the attention of church musicians both in Europe and America, and many notable efforts have been made to restore it to its rightful place in the sanctuary. In fact, there is a true revival and reformation of church music in progress.

One of the chief difficulties which presents itself to the ordinary modern musician who acts as choir-master or organist is the simple melodic form of the chant with its musical notation as it is printed in all authorized office-books. Unaccustomed to its tonality, he makes wretched work of the phrasing and accentuation, and his execution is like that of a schoolboy spelling his words before pronouncing them. Ignorant also of its modality, his attempts at harmony are more wretched still. Under the hands of such performers the chant becomes poor _music_, without expression, in the minor key.

Translations of the chant into modern notation harmonized with a view to giving some notion of the distinctive character of the various modes, are therefore a necessity for all who have not made such a thorough study of the chant as to enable them to read from the original notation and harmonize it at sight.

The present work of Rev. F. Trueg has been composed to supply this want, and will be found in many respects to be superior to the greater number of such translations hitherto published. It comprises the three masses of the _Graduale Romanum_ as given in the Ratisbon edition—viz., for feasts of the Blessed Virgin, for double feasts, and for the Sundays in Advent and Lent, together with the responses at Mass. The harmonization is arranged in such a manner that it serves not only as an instrumental (organ or string quartette) accompaniment, but also, if so preferred, for a vocal execution in four parts without instrumental accompaniment. Some excellent remarks also accompany it by way of preface, explaining the notation employed, and giving some valuable hints as to the proper _tempo_ to be observed.

We commend its careful study to organists and chanters, and trust that it may receive such patronage as to warrant the composer in completing his design of publishing the entire _Graduale_ and _Antiphonarium_ in the same form.

BLANCHE CAREY; OR, SCENES IN MANY LANDS. By Patricia. New York: P.
O’Shea. 1877.

“Blanche Carey was a charming girl of twenty-two summers, beautiful and accomplished. She had just completed her education at a fashionable boarding-school, and was gifted with those graces which constitute the true characteristics of woman. She was the admired of all who knew her, the pride of the family circle, the delight of society, unrivalled in intellectual attainments. If we add to these beauty and grace of form, the picture is complete.”

_Phew!_ And we are only at the first page. What is one to say of so oppressively perfect a heroine? But “the picture” is _not_ “complete” yet; for in the second page the inventory of her qualities and accomplishments is continued in this thrilling style: “The harp she fingered with unrivalled skill; the piano keys she swept like a whirlwind” (good gracious!), “while she executed on the guitar with no less grace and finish.” We are slightly at a loss to understand whether or not this highly-accomplished young lady performed all these startling feats at once, as the author would seem to imply. The picture of a girl “fingering” the harp with unrivalled skill, “sweeping” the piano-keys “like a whirlwind,” while she “executes” on the guitar “with no less grace and finish” than a whirlwind presumably, is something that certainly possesses the merit of novelty. “Finding that she was already proficient in music, she did not wish to devote further time to painting”—why, we do not know. However, “it’s of no consequence,” as Mr. Toots would say.

Blanche goes to Rome and sees the Holy Father, who “was quite affable” to her, she assures us. Here is one of the “Scenes in Many Lands”:

“Our Irish tourists” (Blanche and her grandfather, a Mr. O’Rourke) “had already made quite a sojourn in Italy, and to the old gentleman’s astonishment, as he entered the coffee-room with his granddaughter leaning on his arm, both apparently fatigued after a long drive in the suburbs” (we are at a loss to understand whether the writer means by “suburbs” the suburbs of Italy or the suburbs of the coffee-room), “they observed a young man of prepossessing appearance seated at an opposite table, gazing at them very earnestly. His travelling companions were two ladies. One of them, though by no means elderly, might be taken for his mother; the other young and somewhat coquettish in manner—evidently his sister from the striking resemblance she bore him. _All denoted the air of the Parisian._

“‘That gentleman must be going to make our acquaintance,’ said Blanche. ‘He must, I imagine, be dying to know us. All three are looking at us. I know they are French _by the way they drink wine_.’

“The party in question rose to adjourn to their apartments. As they left the room, Frank Mortimer—for such was his name—glanced several times at Blanche. _She, of course, not condescending to notice the supposed curiosity, evaded it._”

Artful yet discreet Blanche! Of course she makes his acquaintance in the next page—we have only reached page 6 yet, so that it will be seen events move rapidly—and here is how she makes it:

“Having waited for some moments in the pretty boudoir, looking out on a veranda of orange-trees not yet in blossom” (we copy _verbatim_), “Blanche was humming one of her favorite airs, ‘Beautiful Isle of the Sea,’ which she imperceptibly changed to ‘Let each man learn to know himself.’ Frank entered _on the words_, and seemed slightly confused for an instant, but, quickly recovering his composure, he addressed his visitors _with the ease and grace of a debonair_.”

“May we not hope to meet _ye_ in Paris?” is one of the questions put by the easy and graceful “debonair” to his visitors. He falls in love with Blanche, of course, though he confesses that he “almost fell in love once with a lady from South America,” and no wonder. “She was a most perfect creature in face and form; that delicate cast of countenance with an exquisite profile; hair that might be called golden, coiled _on the tip of her head_.”

The parting at the end of the first chapter, between Blanche and Frank, is not altogether as poetical as it might have been made. The train whistle interferes with it considerably. “A whistle, and all was confusion; everybody astir to get on board. A second one, and Frank started to take leave. He tried to speak, but it was impossible. His face quivered with emotion. He pressed the hand of Blanche in silence, and, darting out of the carriage, he encountered Mr. O’Rourke at the door. Bidding him a hasty farewell, he was soon lost in the crowd. ‘What a fool I am!’ he thought, ‘but _I am human nature_. Yet is it not a weakness to bow to its dictates? Should I ever meet that gifted creature again, I will tell her all....’ He wiped the cold perspiration from his forehead, and, with a sigh, tried to forget his misery.”

What a fool he was indeed! Yet he said one sensible thing: “‘Oh!’ said Blanche, laughing, ‘am I not a favored child of fortune? When I go home I shall write a novel or some work of fiction.’

“Frank Mortimer smiled as the words fell from her lips. ‘Heaven save you,’ he said, ‘from such a fate!’”

Frank’s prayer was not heard, seemingly, and the result, we suppose, is _Blanche Carey_. We have not got beyond the first chapter of this fascinating “work of fiction,” and we are not likely to get beyond it. The reader may easily judge of its attractions by the extracts given, which were positively too tempting to pass by.

THE LETTERS OF REV. JAMES MAHER, D.D., LATE P.P. OF CARLOW-GRAIGUE, ON
RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS. With a memoir. Edited by the Rt. Rev. Patrick
Francis Moran, D.D., Bishop of Ossory. Dublin: Browne & Nolan. 1877.

Seldom do we have an opportunity to welcome the appearance of so valuable a book as this, which is the embodiment of those sentiments, views, and convictions that distinguish the modern Irish priest. Few men loved his religion and his native land with a more intense fervor than Father Maher. This double love nourished his frame, increased his strength, stimulated his thoughts, nerved his heart, and underlay every thought and action of his life. He was a man who simply delighted in every opportunity of saying a word or doing a deed in behalf of his creed or his country. As a controversialist his enthusiasm made him almost bitter, but with that bitterness which is born of zeal for the truth. A man of stalwart frame and magnificent proportions, he exercised a magnetic influence over his listeners by his presence alone. Throughout the entire range of controversial literature it would be hard to find anything equal to his scathing arraignment of Archbishop Whately _apropos_ of the Nunnery Inspection bill: “I have myself,” he writes, “two sisters and eighteen nieces who, following the call of Heaven, have selected the religious life. Some of them are in convents in England, some in Ireland, some in America; all engaged in the noble service of forming the tender minds of the children of the poor to virtue, for whose sake and the sake of their Father in heaven they most willingly surrendered in the morning of life all earthly prospects. I well remember what they were under the paternal roof. I know what they are in the cloister. I have never lost sight of them; and as to their happiness, to which I could not be indifferent, I have only to affirm, which I do most solemnly, that I have never known people more happy, more joyous, more light-hearted, or with such buoyant hopes as good _religieuses_. Their character, my lord, is unknown and will remain a mystery to that world for which Christ refused to pray.” These are the brave words of one of the most conspicuous champions of religious freedom, and one of the most determined antagonists of the smelling committee who strove to insult the purest and noblest of women. His spirit is not dead among his _confrères_ in the Irish vineyard, for Cardinal Cullen, the nephew of Father Maher, and the distinguished prelate who has given these inestimable letters to the world—a near relative of the great priest—lives to represent every feeling and pulse of his heart.

SPECIALISTS AND SPECIALTIES IN MEDICINE. Address delivered before the
Alumni Association of the Medical Department of the University of
Vermont. Burlington. 1876.

This address of Dr. Henry, though unpretending in form, is exceedingly well timed and full of suggestiveness. The doctor evidently belongs to the conservative class of his profession, who long for the day when eminent respectability, which is the escutcheon of the medical man in European countries, will be fairly won and worn by every one who subscribes M.D. to his name. As a consequence, he is the bitter enemy of every form of quackery and undue pretentiousness. He certainly handles _soi-disant_ specialists without gloves, and gives the best of reasons why the community should rebel against their assumption of skill. Too many so-called specialists are men who have devoted their time and attention to a special branch of the profession while entirely neglecting the others. This is illogical and cannot be done. Medicine is a science whose parts are bound together as indissolubly as the stages of a reasoning process, and whoever imagines that he can master one department without a knowledge of the others simply follows the advice of Dogberry. We have oculists and aurists and gynœcologists without number who have no knowledge of general pathology. This is altogether wrong. The true _raison d’être_ of a specialist is that, having profoundly studied the science of medicine, he finds that his natural aptitude or taste draws him to one branch of the profession rather than to others. In this manner only have the prominent and highly-reputed specialists in Europe and among ourselves won their fame and fortune. Dr. Henry, in a clear and trenchant style, demonstrates the absurdity of specialties, as such.

MONGRELISM. By Watson F. Quinby M.D. Wilmington, Del.: James & Webb.

This curious monogram is worth perusing, if for no other reason than the fanciful and novel views which it presents. The author attributes many of our present social evils to mongrelism, or the admixture of distinct types of men. He finds in the Book of Revelation the foreshadowing of the natural distribution of men into white, red, and black, deeming the three similarly colored horses to be typical of those three branches of the human family, while the fourth horse, on which sat Death, he considers to be the emblem of mongrelia. He opposes J. J. Rousseau’s idea that man’s primitive condition was one of barbarism, and contends that historical and archæological discoveries prove rather a retrogression than an improvement. The Chinaman is Dr. Quinby’s ideal of a mongrel. In the land of flowers every art once flourished, learning was cultivated, the harpist filled the air with sweetest strains, and the poet sang delicious lays in the beautiful vale of Cashmere, till the bane of mongrelism fell on it and all progress ceased. Mexico and South America are other evidences of the pernicious influence of hybridism. The conclusions of the author are in many instances sound, but his reasoning is too fanciful to satisfy a sober-minded reader. His statement that the rapid influx of Chinese into our midst is fraught with mighty perils is well worth pondering over, and no true statesman will shun the serious consideration of this knotty problem.

JACK. From the French of Alphonse Daudet. By Mary Neal Sherwood,
translator of _Sidonie_. Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1877.

Another painful story by this gifted author. It is cleverly told and the treatment is highly artistic, showing all that careful finish that French writers bestow even on their smallest characters. The characters in this story are most of them wretched enough. Lovers of the real in fiction will find them realistic enough. There is a tone of hopelessness and helplessness in _Jack_, as in _Sidonie_, that is very disheartening. According to M. Daudet, a relentless Fate would seem to clutch some miserable mortals, and hold them till death came as a happy release. “The mother cried in a tone of horror, ‘Dead’?” “No,” said old Rivals; “no—_delivered_,” are the last lines of _Jack_.

There is much truth and also much untruth in the lesson of the book. Social surroundings, of course, influence very materially the growth, physical and moral, of lives. But they are not everything; over and above them all is a man’s own will, and that is the true lever of his life. “Jack” only needed a little more resolution and nerve to have made him a very useful member of society instead of a nincompoop. As in _Sidonie_, so here, the minor characters are to us the most interesting. The humor in _Jack_ is unfortunately less in quantity and more sardonic in quality than in _Sidonie_. We suppose it is hopeless to expect M. Daudet to look for once at the brighter side of life and find his heroes and heroines among respectable people. Meanwhile, we give him all praise as a very powerful artist, though a very unpleasing one. He is fortunate in his American translator.

MCGEE’S ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY: Devoted to Catholic Art, Literature, and
Education. Vol. I. New York: J. A. McGee, Publisher. 1877.

An illustrated Catholic weekly journal, which should successfully compete in point of illustration and literary workmanship with the numerous non-Catholic and anti-Catholic—we had almost said diabolic—journals that are so abundant to-day, was something greatly needed in this country. Various attempts have been made in the past to establish such a journal. They were so many failures. The volume which forms the subject of the present notice is certainly the most successful we have yet seen here, and we have great hopes that, with an increased patronage, which it certainly deserves, it may be all we could wish it to be. It has advanced very much, both in style of illustration, in selection of subjects, and above all in editorial character and ability on its own earlier numbers.

The publisher has had the good fortune as well as the good sense to secure a really able editor in Col. James E. McGee, who, in addition to being an excellent writer, possesses that sound journalistic sense and judgment without which the very best matter is simply wasted in a publication of this kind. Most of the illustrated journals of the day are so much mental and moral poison, and the deadliest are those that are most generally liked and enjoy the widest circulation. To furnish an antidote to this bane is a good as well as a bold work, which deserves well of Catholics everywhere. We most heartily wish continued success to the new venture.

THE BIBLE OF HUMANITY. By Jules Michelet. Translated from the French by
Vincenzo Calfa. With a new and complete index. New York: J. W.
Bouton. 1877.

This is a translation of what may be called a sensational romance by Jules Michelet, founded on the earliest records of various races of the human family, including the Old and the New Testament. The author runs riot amidst these ancient documents; and his disordered imagination misinterprets them unscrupulously, denies boldly what does not answer his purpose, and invents at pleasure, until in the end nothing is left on the mind of the reader except the impression of a defying, scoffing, and voluptuous disciple of M. Voltaire—Jules Michelet.

The translation is in good English; we have no reason to think it is not faithfully done.

THE POETICAL AND PROSE WRITINGS OF CHARLES SPRAGUE. New edition. With a
portrait and a biographical sketch. Boston: A. Williams & Co. 1876.

Mr. Sprague’s writings, whether in prose or poetry, are of that kind, we fear, that are not destined to live long in men’s memories, however much immediate interest and attention they may excite at the time of their publication. His verse was smooth enough and sweet enough as a rule, with little or nothing in it to jar on sensitive feelings, and little or nothing in it also to rouse feeling of any kind. The present edition is handsomely brought out.

ANNALS OF OUR LADY OF THE SACRED HEART. Monthly bulletin of the
Archconfraternity of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, published with the
approbation of Rt. Rev. Edgar P. Wadhams, Bishop of Ogdensburg.
Printed for the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, by Chas. E.
Holbrook, Watertown, N. Y.

We have received the first number of this little publication, the object of which is best set forth in the words of the dedication “to the clergy, religious communities, colleges, institutions of learning, and Catholic societies of America.” “The Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Jesus established at Watertown earnestly recommend to the zeal of Catholics the monthly publication entitled _Annals of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart_. Its object is to make known and to propagate in America, and in the English possessions, the admirable devotion to Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, and, through Mary, to lead souls to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.” The publication begins with the June number.

THE CATHOLIC PARENTS’ FRIEND. Devoted to the cause of Catholic
education. Edited monthly by M. Wallrath, pastor of the Church of the
Immaculate Conception, Colusa, California. Numbers for May, June, and
July, 1877.

We think this little publication may do great good to the cause of Catholic education. We trust it may have an extensive patronage. A little more timeliness and brevity in the articles, and a more pointed and direct application of them to matters moving around us here at home, would add greatly to the value and interest of so excellently conceived a work.

* * * * *

We have received from the Catholic Publication Society Co. advance sheets of Cardinal Manning’s latest volume, reprinted from the English plates, which were specially furnished to this house by the English publishers. It is impossible at so short a notice to deal fitly with a work by so eminent an author, and touching on a variety of subjects, each one of which is timely and important. Some indication of the value of the volume may be gathered from the titles of the various papers: “The Work and Wants of the Catholic Church in England”; “Cardinal Wiseman”; “French Infidelity”; “Ireland”; “On Progress”; “The Dignity and Rights of Labor”; “The Church of Rome”; “Cæsarism and Ultramontanism”; “Ultramontanism and Christianity”; “The Pope and Magna Charta”; “Philosophy without Assumptions,” etc., etc.

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS RECEIVED.

SAINT ELIZABETH, QUEEN OF HUNGARY. By the author of _Life in a
Cloister_, etc.

HORTENSE: an Historical Romance. Translated from the French. By R. J.
Halm. Kelly, Piet & Co., Baltimore.

THE CROWN OF HEAVEN, THE SUPREME OBJECT OF CHRISTIAN HOPE. From the
German of Rev. John N. Stöger, S.J. By Rev. M. Nash, S.J. P. O’Shea,
New York.

SELECTIONS from the _Imitation of Christ_. SELECTIONS from the _Thoughts
of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus_. Roberts Bros., Boston.

STRENGTH AND CALCULATION OF DIMENSIONS OF IRON AND STEEL CONSTRUCTIONS,
WITH REFERENCE TO THE LATEST EXPERIMENTS. Translated from the German
of J. J. Weyrauch, Ph.D., Prof. Polytechnic School of Stuttgart. D.
Van Nostrand, New York.

TEN YEARS OF MY LIFE. By the Princess Felix Salm-Salm. R. Worthington,
New York.

_The Forty-seventh Annual Report of the Inspectors of the State
Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for the year
1876_. Sherman & Co., Philadelphia.

SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE WOMAN’S BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETIES. With
the Proceedings of the Annual Meetings. Rand, Avery & Co., Boston.

NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CLARKE INSTITUTION FOR DEAF MUTES AT
NORTHAMPTON, MASS., FOR THE YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 1876.

ON THE VALUE AND CULTURE OF ROOTS FOR STOCK FEEDING. By David Landreth &
Sons. McCalla & Stavely, Philadelphia.

FINAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE WOODRUFF SCIENTIFIC EXPEDITION AROUND THE
WORLD. Indianapolis _Journal_ Co., Indianapolis.

ANNALS OF THE CATHOLIC INDIAN MISSIONS OF AMERICA. Bureau of Catholic
Indian Missions, Washington, D. C.

INDULGENCES APOSTOLIQUES, OU INDULGENCES APPLICABLES AUX VIVANTS ET AUX
DEFUNTS. Que le Saint Père Pie IX. attache aux Rosaires, Chapelets,
Croix, etc., qui en ont obtenu le pouvoir approuvé par l’autorité
compétente. Rome: Libreria di Roma.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE

CATHOLIC WORLD.

---------------------

VOL. XXVI., No. 152.—NOVEMBER, 1877.

---------------------

THE FREE-RELIGIONISTS.

I.—THE NEW-ENGLANDER.

This pamphlet[17] of ninety-five pages gives an account of the last annual meeting in Boston of the “Free-Religious Association, its object being to promote the practical interests of pure religion, to increase fellowship in spirit, and to encourage the scientific study of man’s religious nature and history.” Associations of this kind seem to be necessary as safety-valves to a certain class of men and women, chiefly found in New England, who, especially in matters of religion, are in a state of effervescence, and feel the pressing need at times of publicly delivering themselves of such thoughts as come uppermost in their minds on this and kindred subjects. The phenomenon is a peculiar one, and perhaps in no other country could such a variety of odd spirits as are usually found in these assemblies be convoked. Their proceedings are full of interest to the student of religion and the mental philosopher, no less than to the observer of the phases of religious development of some of the most active thinkers of this section of our country.

The American mind at bottom is serious, clings with deathless tenacity to a religion of some sort; and of none is this more characteristic than of the descendants of the Puritan Fathers. The children of the Puritans may be eccentric, at times fanatical, and inclined to thrust their religious, social, political, and even dietetical notions upon others; but they are men and women who think; they are restless until they have gained a religious belief, and are marked with earnestness of some sort, energy, and practical skill. The Puritan race is a thinking, religious, and an aggressive race of men and women. Whatever he may be, there is always in a genuine Puritan a great deal of positive human nature. Let him be under error, and his teeming brain will breed countless crotchets, any one of which he will maintain with the bitterest fanaticism, and, if placed in power, will impose it upon others with a ruthless intolerance.

Give him truth, and you have an enlightened faith, indomitable zeal, and not a few of the elements which go to make up an apostle. The main qualities which distinguish the typical New-Englander, though not altogether the most attractive, are nevertheless not the meanest in human nature, and we candidly confess, though not a drop of Puritan blood runs in our veins, that we have but few dislikes, while we entertain many feelings of sincere respect, for the New England type of man. It is, therefore, with special interest that we read whatever offers an insight into the workings of the minds of so large, influential, and important a class of the American people.

Copyright: Rev. I. T. HECKER. 1877.

II.—WHAT IS THE FREE-RELIGIONIST MOVEMENT.

The Unitarian Association did not go far enough and fast enough to suit the temper of a class of its more radical and ardent members; hence the existence of the separate organization of “The Free-Religious Association.” The movement of the free-religionists may be said to spring from a laudable desire to get rid in the speediest way possible of the spurious Christianity which was imposed upon them by their forefathers as genuine Christianity and pure religion.

Suppose they have accomplished this laborious task of purification, what then? Have they found wherewith “to yield the religious sentiment reasonable satisfaction,” which Mr. Tyndall says “is the problem of problems at this hour”? By no means; this discovery is quite another affair.

“Hic labor,
Hoc opus est.”

They have only reached its starting-point. Let them begin their search, and investigate every form or scheme of religion that has existed among men from the beginning of the human race; let them speculate on these to their hearts’ content, and indulge in the fancy that they have a mission to invent or construct a new religion—and what then? Why, they will find, at the end of all their earnest efforts, that there are, and especially for those who have been under the light and quickening influences of Christianity, but two possible movements, one a continuous curve and the other a tangent. One or the other of these lines they will be inevitably forced to take. If they pursue the first and push their premises to their logical consequences, they will, if intelligent and consistent, be led at some point into the circle of the Catholic Church; if they follow the latter, and have the courage of their opinions, they will declare themselves first infidels and then atheists. The fact is becoming daily more and more plain to intelligent and fearlessly honest men that there is no logical standing ground, we do not say between Catholicity and atheism—for atheism has no logical standing position whatever—but that there is no logical standing ground at all outside of Catholicity. For Catholicity professes to be, and has ever maintained that it is, the most perfect manifestation to men of the supreme divine Reason, and to reject the truths which it sets before human reason with the convincing evidence of their divine origin necessarily involves the denial of human reason itself; consequently, human reason inevitably falls, in the end, with the rejection of Catholicity. A man may reject Protestantism and claim human reason; nay, he is bound to repudiate Protestantism, if he holds to human reason, for the doctrine of “total depravity” taught by orthodox Protestant sects undermines altogether the value of human reason.[18] But Catholicity appeals confidently to human reason for its firm support, since its entire structure is based upon the infallibility of human reason in its sphere, and the irrefragable certitude of its great primary truths. The interdependent relations, therefore, existing between reason and Catholicity are essential, and they stand or fall together. The way that Dr. Holmes has put this question is not, we beg his pardon, the right way; he says: “Rome or Reason?” He should have said: Rome and Reason.

There can be no rational belief in God, in the immortality of the soul, in human responsibility as against Christianity, as there can be no rational belief in Christianity as against Catholicity. Outside of the Catholic Church there is only nihilism.

III.—THE DRIFTS OF FREE-RELIGIONISM.

It would be difficult to predict the precise course of these “come-outers” of the latest date, called free-religionists. Some will probably stop after having repudiated Protestantism, rest upon the truths of reason, and, without inquiring further, vainly try to satisfy, with a species of theism, the great aspirations and deep needs of their souls; eventually they may fall back on old Unitarianism. Others will venture to examine, as some before them have done, the claims of the Catholic Church, and finding that these are founded on human reason, that her doctrines perfect the truths of human reason, and that she alone is adequate to satisfy all the wants of the human heart, will become in the course of time Catholics, and save their souls—that is, reach their high destiny. Another section will, during, perhaps, their whole lives, seriously amuse themselves with the study of Brahminism, Buddhism, and every other kind of outlandish religion—not a vain intellectual amusement, except when associated with the absurd idea of concocting a new religion. While the larger section, we fear, will follow the tangent and end in nihilism. For although the main drift of the religious world outside of the Catholic Church, especially in the United States, is towards naturalism; although the face of each free-religionist looks in a somewhat different way, yet the actual movement of the greatest number of these Unitarian dissenters is apparently in the direction of zero.

Precisely where the president of the Free-Religious Association stands, to what definite truths he assents as undeniable, and what convictions he holds as settled, is not to be gathered from any of his sermons, tracts, speeches, and several published books. He seems to be laboring under the impression that he has a mission to bring forth a new religion, but thus far he or his associates in this illusive idea have given to the world no new word in religion, or in morals, or in philosophy, or in politics, or in social life, or in art, or in science, or in method, or in anything else _scibile_. Mr. William R. Alger has ventured to predict to his free-religionist brethren in their last annual gathering a new incarnation and its gospel, in which we fail to see anything new or important, if true. “The spirit of science,” such are the words of his prophecy, “enriched with the spirit of piety, is the avatar of the new Messiah.”

Francis Ellswood Abbot, a conspicuous member of the Free-Religious Association, as well as one of its active directors and the editor of the _Index_, a weekly journal which is in some sort the organ of the free-religious movement, has, among other notable things, come to the front and publicly impeached Christianity. His indictment contains five counts against the Christian religion: “human intelligence, human virtue, the human heart, human freedom, and humanitarian religion.”[19] Here are his charges: “Christianity,” he says, “no longer proclaims the highest truths, inculcates the purest ethics, breathes the noblest spirit, stimulates to the grandest life, holds up to the soul and to society the loftiest ideal of that which ought to be.”[20] But this is neither new nor original; for what is the Christianity which Mr. Abbot so boldly impeaches? Why, in all its main features it is that disfigurement of Christianity which he has inherited from his Calvinistic progenitors, and which the Council of Trent impeached, and for the most part on the very same grounds as he does, more than three centuries ago; so that in each of his articles of impeachment every Catholic to-day will heartily join, and to each of his charges say: Amen; _Anathema sit!_

What is surprising to Catholics is that there should be intelligent and educated men living in this enlightened nineteenth century who have found out that Calvinism is false, and have not yet discovered in the intellectual environment of Boston that Calvinism is not Christianity. “They do not attack the Catholic Church,” said Daniel O’Connell, in speaking of a similar class of men, “but a monster which they have created and called the Catholic Church.”

But Mr. Abbot is not of the men who are content to rest in mere negation. In a lecture delivered by him in a course under the auspices of the Free-Religious Association, entitled _A Study of Religion_, after much preliminary discourse, he gives with the heading, “The New Conception of Religion,” the following definition of religion: “Religion,” he says, “is the effort of man to perfect himself.”[21] Now, what is the origin of “man’s effort to perfect himself”? “Religion,” he affirms, “appears in its universal aspect as the _decree of Nature_ that her own end shall be achieved. Religion is the inward impulsion of Nature, seconded by the conscious effort of the individual to conform to it,” etc.[22]

What Mr. Abbot calls “nature” and “ideal excellence in all directions” is what the common sense of mankind has named God. Mr. Abbot has no objection to the same name; only he insists that the idea of God, which is very proper, should be submitted “to the educated intelligence of the human race.”[23] “It is,” he says, “because I do believe in God that I am willing to submit my belief in him to the sharpest and most searching scrutiny of science.”[24]

Now, Mr. Abbot admits that if you once concede the Messianic claim of Christ, “then it is true that Catholicism is itself Christianity in its most perfect form.”[25] He therefore stops virtually in his analysis of religion at the idea of God, and, if he believed in the Divinity of Christ and did not eschew logic, he would have to embrace Catholicity. Mr. Abbot, like many Unitarians, agrees on this point with P. J. Proudhon, but with this difference: the Frenchman recedes a step, and maintains that “outside of Christianity there is no God, no religion, no faith, no theology.... The church believes in God, and believes in God more faithfully and more perfectly than any sect. The church is the purest, most perfect, and most enlightened revelation of the divine Being, and none other understands what is worship. From a religious stand-point the Catholicism of the Latin peoples is the best, the most rational, and the most perfect. Rome, in spite of her repeated and frightful falls, remains the only legitimate church.” Hence Proudhon and those of his school lay it down as a _sine qua non_ that the elimination of the idea of God, and of all obligation to any divine law, is the condition of all true progress. From this we may draw the conclusion that Francis E. Abbot is on the curve line, and, if he follows out his definition of religion to its logical consequences, he will surely land, whatever may be the sweep of his continuous curve, in the bosom of the Catholic Church. There is no escape from this ultimate result, if reason is to rule, except by hastily taking the back track, and starting on the tangent, and eventually plunging with Proudhon into the dark abyss of nihilism. Hence every sagacious straight-line radical cannot but look upon the platform of the editor of the _Index_ as the jumping-off place into popery for all consistent theists. That this is not meant as pleasantry, but is written in downright earnestness, we quote the conclusion of his lecture on _A Study of Religion_, and preface it by saying that the language with which he urges his definition of religion on his hearers finds in every word an echo in the hearts of all sincere and instructed Catholics, and receives their full endorsement.

“I speak now,” he says, “as one who _believes_ in religion, thus
conceived, from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head,
without apology either for the name or the thing, and without
the smallest concession to the prejudice that assails either the
one or the other. To-day I speak only to the large in heart and
broad in mind—to those who must accept science and would fain
accept religion too. To these I say that science itself would
lose its fearless love of truth, were it not that religion fed
its secret springs; that social reform would lose its motive and
inspiration, literature and art their beauty, and all human life
its sweetest and tenderest grace, did not religion evermore
create the insatiable hunger after perfection in the soul of
man. Bright, cheerful, ennobling, stimulating, emancipating,
religion is the greatest friend of humanity, ever guiding it
upward and onward to the right and the true; ay, and to all we
yearn for, if, as we believe, the right and the true are indeed
the pathway to God.”

But not all free-religionists are gifted with so deep, intelligent, and healthy an appreciation of the essence of religion as Francis E. Abbot, who leaves nothing at present to be desired but the courage of his convictions—_proficiat!_

There is, however, in the _Christian Inquirer_ a revelation made by William Ellery Channing, a distinguished nephew of the celebrated Dr. Channing, which tells quite another story. It appears by this article that the president of the Free Religious Association, O. B. Frothingham, had attributed to Mr. Channing, one of the speakers in the tenth annual assembly, a “poetic Christianity,” a “religion in the air,” an “up-in-a-balloon” religion, and in reply to this accusation he draws from nature the following unattractive personal portraits:

“Let me,” says Mr. Channing, “make a clean breast of it to you
before all onlookers. What you mean by the ‘rumors’ that I had
become ‘ecclesiastical in tastes and opinions’ I can but
conjecture. But the simple facts are in brief these: You
remember how seven years ago, on the public platform, and in the
reunions of the Free-Religionists in dear John Sargent’s
hospitable rooms, and in private ‘confabs’ with yourself, and W.
J. Potter, and S. Longfellow, and S. Johnson, and J. Weiss, and
T. W. Higginson, and D. A. Wasson, and F. E. Abbot, etc., I
tried to preach my gospel, that the _vital centre_ of free
religious union is the _life of God in man_ as made gloriously
manifest in Jesus the Christ. And you remember, too, how around
that centre I illustrated the historic fact that the great
religions of our race arranged themselves in orderly groups.
For nearly a year I opened my heart and mind to the
free-religionists and liberal Christians, without a veil to hide
my inmost holy of holies. But shall I tell you, my friend, that
when I bade you all farewell, in the summer of 1870, it was with
sad forebodings? And why? The story, too long to tell in full,
ran thus: One, in his wish to be bathed in the sense of
ever-present Deity, had ceased to commune with the Spirit of
spirits in prayer. Another, in his repulsion from imprisoning
anthropomorphism, had abandoned all conceptions of a personal
God, and so lost the Father. A third, in his historic purpose to
lead a heavenly-human life, here and now, gave up the hope of
immortal existence, as a sailor might turn from contemplating
the cloud-palaces of sunset to pull the tarry cordage and spread
the coarse canvas of his ship. And, saddest of all, a fourth, in
his bold purpose to be spontaneous in every impulse and emotion,
spurned the motherly monitions of duty so sternly that
conscience even seemed driven to return to heaven, like ‘Astræa
Redux.’ In brief, one felt as if the liberal college of all
religions in council with pantheism, agnosticism, and atheistic
materialism was destined to fall flat to dust in a confused
chaos of most commonplace _spiritual ‘know-nothingism.’_ Such
was my disheartening vision of the near future for dearly-loved
compeers. And a darker valley of ‘devastation,’ as our
Swedenborgian friends say, than I was driven into I have never
traversed.”

But Mr. Channing goes further; he shows that he has studied the religious philosophers of antiquity to some purpose, seized their true meaning and real drift, and in touching language takes his readers into his confidence, offering to them an insight into his present relations to Christianity.

The following remarkable paragraph possesses a thrilling interest for Catholics; and if it affects others as it has the present writer on reading it, they will not fail to offer up an aspiration to Him who has given such graces to the soul of the man who penned it—and doubtless to others among the free-religionists—that he will render their faith explicit and perfect it.

“Once again,” he says, “I sought comfort with the blessed
company of sages and saints of the Orient and Hellas—with
Lao-Tsee and Kung Fu-Tsee; with the writers of the Bhagava-Geeta
and the Dhamma-Bada; of the hymns of ancient Avesta and the
modern sayings and songs of the Sufis; with radiant Plato and
heroic Epictetus, etc., etc. Once more they refreshed and
reinspirited me as of old. But they did something better: hand
in hand they brought me up to the white marble steps, and the
crystal baptismal font, and the bread and wine-crowned
communion-table—ay, to the cross in the chancel of the Christian
temple—and, as they laid their hands in benediction on my head,
they whispered: ‘Here is your real _home_. We have been but your
guides in the desert to lead you to fellowship with the Father
and his Son in the spirit of holy humanity. Peace be with you.’
And so, my brother, once again, and with a purer, profounder,
tenderer love than ever, like a little child, I kissed the
blood-stained feet and hands and side of the Hero of Calvary,
and laid my hand on the knees of the gentlest of martyrs, and
was uplifted by the embracing arms of the gracious elder
Brother, and in his kiss of mingled pity and pardon found the
peace I sought, and became a Christian in _experience_, as
through a long life I had hoped and prayed to be. Depend upon
it, dear Frothingham, there is on this small earth-ball no
_reality_ more _real_ than this central communion with God in
Christ, of which the saints of all ages in the church universal
bear witness.”

IV.—THE MEETING.

But we have wandered off somewhat from our present point, which is the proceedings of “the tenth annual meeting” of the free-religionists in Boston. What is singularly remarkable among so intellectual and cultivated a class of men as assemble at these gatherings, and especially among its select speakers and essayists, is that they should display so great a lack of true knowledge of the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is not worthy of serious study, then why make it a subject for speeches and essays in so important an assembly? But if it be worthy of so much attention, why not give it that investigation which its significance demands? We dare not say that the leaders among the free-religionists are not intelligent men, that they have not read considerably. But when they charge the Catholic Church with heresies which she has condemned; when they attribute to her doctrine which she always has detested and does detest; and when they blacken her with stale and oft-refuted calumnies, and recklessly traduce her dearest and best, her holiest children, we dare not trust ourselves to give expression to what comes uppermost in our thoughts. Shakspeare gives good advice in this matter:

“Though honesty be no Puritan,
Yet it will do no hurt.”

We recommend this to the consideration of our free-religionists. It will do them “no hurt” to show more of this virtue when speaking of the Catholic Church. It becomes those who talk so much about science to talk a little less about it, and, when the Catholic religion is concerned, to give more evidence of scientific study. Especially does this course become men who claim to be public teachers belonging to a body whose object is “to encourage the scientific study of man’s religious nature and history.”

The first essay, delivered by William R. Alger, entitled _Steps towards Religious Emancipation in Christendom_, and published in their tenth annual report, will serve to illustrate our meaning. Mr. Alger is a scholar of repute, a man who has travelled abroad, written and published several books displaying extensive reading, refined tastes, and high literary culture. He is, moreover, a distinguished minister of the Unitarian denomination. His essay, we have reason to believe, was prepared with the usual care bestowed upon such papers; for the president of the association, in introducing the author, said: “The discussion will be opened by an essay by Mr. William R. Alger, of New York, who has made this matter in its historical aspects the study of years, and is carefully prepared to present the result of his deepest thought and investigation.”[26]

In its fourth paragraph the essay proposes to give a rough sketch of the “doctrinal thought” on which in mediæval times the “intellectual unity” of the church rested. Our limits will not allow us to quote it entire, but it is enough for our purpose to say—and we weigh our words before putting them on paper—that scarcely any one sentence of this paragraph contains a correct statement of the “doctrinal thought” of the Catholic Church either in the middle ages or in any other age.

Here are some of the statements: “The whole human race, descended from Adam, who lived _five thousand years before_,” etc. Mr. Alger would convey new information to the readers of THE CATHOLIC WORLD, if he would give his authorities for this assertion. Thus far, if our authorities do not deceive us, the Catholic Church has, in her wisdom, left the question of the date of man’s appearance upon this earth to the discussion of chronologists and to the disputes among scientists.

Again: “The Bible, a mysterious book dictated by the Spirit of God, containing an infallible record of what is most important in this scheme of salvation, _is withheld from the laity_.” It would also increase the knowledge of our readers if the author had given his authorities to prove the above charge. The testimony of Catholics, if we be a judge, is precisely the contrary to this accusation. They entertain the conviction that it was the most earnest desire of the church in the period of which Mr. Alger is speaking to render the Bible accessible to all classes of men. Her monks devoted themselves to the severe manual labor of copying the Bible, and engaged in the noble toil of translating it into the vulgar tongues of various nations, that the people might become readers of the Bible. She exposed the Bible publicly in her libraries, and chained it to their walls by the windows, and to desks in her churches, in order that it might be read by everybody and not stolen. The charge is simply an old and oft-repeated calumny quite unworthy a man of reputed intelligence.

“The actual power or seal of salvation is made available to believers only through the sacraments of the church—confession, baptism, Mass, and penance—legally administered by her accredited representatives.” There is such an inextricable confusion pervading this statement that it is difficult to discern its meaning. No one, we venture to say, who had mastered the “doctrinal thought” of the church would have ever penned so distracted a sentence on so important a point. One would suppose that, according to Mr. Alger, there were two sacraments, one “confession” and the other “penance”; whereas every Catholic who has learned the little catechism knows that “confession,” the popular term, means, in the language of the church, the Sacrament of Penance. Then what is meant by “baptism legally administered by her accredited representatives”? This is not clear; but the whole statement is so confused in thought and tangled in expression that the only hope of understanding the author’s meaning is to give him an opportunity of trying again. It would be, among ourselves, interesting to read from non-Catholic authors the “doctrinal thought” of the church on what is essential to salvation and what is ordinarily necessary to salvation. It would also, we are inclined to think, clear up many of their misconceptions and do them no little good to have correct ideas on so important a matter.

“Those,” says Mr. Alger, “who humbly believe and observe these doctrines shall be saved; _all others lost for ever_.”

This sentence follows the preceding one, and the same confusion and error underlie both. When the ingenuous author of this essay has corrected the former sentence by reading up on the point involved, he will, as a matter of course, correct the error contained in the latter.

Passing now over several paragraphs containing many charges, we regret to say, in unusually bitter words, we come to the following: “The revival of the Greek learning, the study of the works of Plato, Aristotle, the classic poets, orators, and historians, with their beautiful and surprising revelations of genius, virtue, and piety, _entirely independent and outside of the church and Bible_, exerted an immense force in liberalizing and refining the narrow, dogmatic mind of the Christian world, refuting its _arrogant pretensions to an exclusive communion with God and heritage in Providence_.” If the cultivated writer of this essay had qualified the phrase “outside of the church” _as I understand it_, “exclusive communion” _as I view it_, this sentence might pass; but, as it stands, the position in which the Catholic Church is placed is entirely false, and we refer our readers to what is said on these points under the heading of “The Mission of the Latin Race,” commencing on page 5, in the last number of this magazine.

“Now the Pope,” says Mr. Alger, “excommunicates the emperor, sets up a rival, foments a rebellion among his subjects, or launches the terrible interdict on a whole nation, shutting the churches, muffling the bells, forbidding confession to the penitent, unction to the dying, burial to the dead.”[27] Either the author has been imposed upon by his authorities, or perhaps he has not weighed sufficiently his words. The effect of an interdict of the Pope is inaccurately stated. These are “terrible” matters, and one who is reciting history should be careful and exact in his specifications. Here, as before, he is bound to give his authorities, and learned and credible ones, or change his language.

“The repeated gross contradictions of bishops, councils, and popes, their inconsistent decrees reversing or neutralizing each other, _infallibility clashing with infallibility_, begat irrepressible doubts.”[28] This sentence may pass for a rhetorical flourish, but it involves a grave, a very grave, a most grave charge, and is backed up by no example, or proof, or relation of authorities! These cutting and slashing assertions where conscientious accuracy is required and sound scholarship ought to be displayed, place the intelligence and education of his Boston audience in no enviable light. Let us have some specimens of “infallibility clashing with infallibility” by all means:

“Luther sprang forth with one-third of Christendom in revolt at his back.... But _the fundamental doctrines_ of the church scheme otherwise remained _essentially_ as they had been, unchallenged.”[29] What a pity that the theologians of the sixteenth century had not known that “the fundamental doctrines of the church scheme remained essentially” the same! The Council of Trent, if it had only understood this, might have saved its anathemas.

“After Luther, then, we see Christendom, with _fundamental agreement of belief_, differing, for the most part, only in affairs of polity and ritual, split into two bodies—those who rest their belief on the _inspired_ authority of the church, and those who rest it on the inspired authority of the Bible.”[30] Here again we have another _fundamental_ erroneous idea of the church. “Inspired” authority is not what Catholics believe. This language shows poor theological training or a loose way of handling delicate and important points. But on this point we shall have more to say.

“Third,” says Mr. Alger, “a revolt of common sense against
_errors with which the teachings of church and Scripture were
identified_, but which, by the simple lapse of time, had been
demonstrated to be false. For example, in the twentieth chapter
of the Book of Revelations it is recorded: ‘And he laid hold of
the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and cast him
into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him
that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand
years should be fulfilled; after that he must be loosed a little
season.’ This passage was thought to fix the date of the Day of
Judgment. And as the time drew near the terror was profound.
Throughout the generation preceding the year one thousand _the
pulpits of the Christian world rang with this frightful text and
with awful descriptions of what it implied. The fear was as
intense as the belief was general._”