Puslapio vaizdai

excommunicated, and without even a hearing or a notice, by the Universalists, for having embraced views not quite in harmony with theirs. Even the Unitarians, who have, with us, no written creed, if they do not formally disfellowship the member of their denomination, who interprets the word of God differently from the interpretation which they tacitly adopt, excommunicate virtually, by turning the cold shoulder, by refusing ministerial intercourse, by nods, winks, hints, suggestions, private denunciations, &c., &c. Is it not so? That it is, many of our friends have had experimental proof. Nothing is more false than this hypocritical cant of Protestants about the right of private judgment. It means ever only that "you are free to judge that what I believe is true, and what I disbelieve is false." Nothing more. Every Protestant sect has persecuted those of its members who attempted to exercise practically the right of private judgment, and in every country where any one Protestant sect has been strong enough to establish its faith by law, it has done so. The first instance on record, we believe, of absolute civil liberty in regard to religious faith, is the Catholic colony of Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore; and the Protestants no sooner gained the ascendancy in that colony than they established the Protestant religion by law. The Puritans were notorious for their intolerance, and we have heard of their banishing, branding, imprisoning, and hanging persons, for presuming to exercise the right of private judgment. The Anglican Church has been from the first a persecuting Church, and her history in this respect is the blackest page in the whole history of humanity; and even the evangelical Bishop of the diocese of Vermont has recently proposed the establishment of a council, one part of whose duty it shall be to exercise a censorship of the press. Surely, Protestants, who are notorious the world over for their intolerance and their hostility to freedom of thought and conscience, should not talk about mental slaves and the liberty of the press. Let them give some proofs that they themselves comprehend and love even the first elements of freedom, before they bring railing accusations against others.


But, continues the reviewer, "the Church of Rome has ever waged a deadly war upon literature." We do not know precisely in what sense the reviewer here uses the term, Church of Rome; but we presume he will not object to our under

VOL. II. NO. 1.


standing by the Church of Rome, the whole Latin Church, for at least one thousand years next preceding the Reformation, and all particular churches which have since continued in communion with the See of Rome, and to acknowledge the Pope as the visible head of the Church. The charge, then, is, that the whole Latin Church, from the sixth century to the sixteenth, and the whole Roman Catholic Church since, as the Church, has waged an unceasing and deadly warfare upon liter


Now, the reviewer not only makes this charge, but he declares it the design of his paper "to exhibit the proofs" of it. Well, what proofs does he exhibit? Not a proof, not the shadow of a proof; nor does he even attempt to bring any proof, but the assertion of hostility to a free press, which we have proved to be groundless. If the Church has ever waged this war upon literature, how happens it that the reviewer can adduce no decree of council, universal, national, or provincial; no papal bull, or, at least, some sermon, charge, letter, or other writing, of some cardinal or bishop, condemning literature and literary pursuits? It is strange, if this war has been unceasingly waged for at least thirteen hundred years, all over Europe, and in the face of all the world, that our reviewer can find no proof of the fact, but an unfounded assertion, and an unwarrantable inference from certain expurgatory indexes. Since he can find none, it is fair to presume none exists.

The simple truth is, as every one knows, who is at all acquainted with the literary history of Christendom, that the Catholic Church has been, from the first, the warm friend and generous patron of literature. A charge more false, more directly in the face and eyes of well known truth, it is impossible to invent; and our Methodist friend, if he had knowledge enough of literature to be entitled even to take the sacred name upon his lips, would not have dared to make the statement he has; for we are not willing to consider him one of those who are given up" to believe a lie that they may be damned."

The early fathers of the Church, St. Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, St. Basil, Lactantius, St. John Chrysostom, the Gregories, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and others, were not only the most learned men of their times, but can well take rank with the most learned men of the palmiest days of Greece and Rome. They loved learning, and encouraged it both by precept and example; and have always been held in the highest honor in the Roman Catholic Church, and, with one or two exceptions, of almost apostolic authority. It

is idle to pretend that a Church which reveres these noble and enlightened men as the glory of their race, and studies diligently their works, is hostile to literature. To a Christian heart and understanding, literature does not consist merely in an acquaintance with the poets, comedians, orators, and philosophers of pagan Greece and Rome. The Catholic has never condemned the study even of these, but he has always felt that the Christian literature of the early ages of the Church was richer, and more befitting a follower of Jesus. And herein is the difference between Catholics and Protestants. With Protestants, the first names you hear are Homer, Virgil, Horace, Cicero, and Cæsar. With a Catholic, the first names you hear are the holy fathers, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, the great St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Leo, and St. Gregory the Great. He has poets, orators, philosophers, of his own, who belong to the Church, by whose labors the Church, under God, was built up and sustained, and enabled to achieve its immortal conquests over Jewish prejudice, pagan darkness, idolatry, and corruption, and over pestilential heresies and destructive schisms. If he has preferred these to the Greek and Roman classics, it is to his honor, and proves that he has never been willing to sacrifice his faith as a Christian upon the altars of Jupiter, Apollo, Bacchus, or Cybele. It proves that the Christian life-blood has ever continued to circulate in his veins, and his heart to beat quicker at the mention of the Cross of Christ. It proves that he has felt himself connected by one inner life to the whole army of martyrs, and, through the blessing of God, made one in the holy communion of saints. He needed not to wander to Greece or Rome, to linger in the Academy, the Lyceum, the Garden, or the Portico, to refresh his soul with the words of life. He inherited, in the sacred literature of his Church, a wealth which made all that pagan antiquity had to offer appear poor, mean, and contemptible. Of all this our poor Protestants know nothing, feel nothing. Having left their father's house, and spent their portion of the heavenly inheritance in their riotous living, sectarian jars, and theological janglings, ready to starve, they would fain feed their famished souls with the husks of heathenism. O, would they could once remember that in their father's house there is bread enough and to spare !

But there never has been a period in the history of the Church, when the valuable literary works even of Greece and Rome were not studied, and appreciated at their full value.

We are indebted to the old monks, in their cloisters, for the preservation of all that remains to us of Greek and Roman literature. The monks and the secular clergy, though they never placed this literature above the Sacred Scriptures and the writings of the fathers, yet made themselves acquainted with it, and probably even in the "Dark Ages" appreciated it more justly than we do. But even if they did not, does it follow that they were hostile to literature? Cannot a man love and encourage literature, without loving and encouraging the study of the Greek and Roman classics? Is there no literature for us, but that of Greece and Rome? Even admitting this gross absurdity, who, we ask, revived the study of Greek and Roman letters ? We hear of the Dark Ages, and then of the revival of letters. But when was this revival, and by whom was it effected? It took place about a century before the birth of Protestantism, and was effected by the encouragement and patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. It was the Pope who provided an asylum at Rome for the Greek scholars who fled from the Mahometan conquerors of Constantinople. Very little has been learned of ancient Greek and Roman literature, which was not well known in Western Europe long before the Reformation.

But we do not rest here. We will not resign the so-called "Dark Ages." We dare affirm that no period in the history of our race, of equal length, can be pointed out, so remarkable for its intellectual and literary activity, as the thousand years dating from the beginning of the sixth century, and extending to the commencement of the sixteenth. These are the thousand years of what Protestants would call the peculiar reign of Popery. This period opens with the entire dissolution of the old world. The Northern Barbarians have overthrown the Western empire, and seated themselves permanently on its ruins. The old world has disappeared, and nothing remains standing to connect the present with the past, but the ecclesiastical society. Greek and Roman civilization, its arts, sciences, and refinements, save what are retained by the Church, are swept away. Ignorance and barbarism have resumed their ancient dominion. In the midst of this ignorance and barbarism, on the ruins of a past world, when all is to be begun anew, the Church takes its stand. Now, in order to judge fairly of what the Church has done for the human race, whether in reference to religion, morals, literature, or science, we must ascertain what it attempted with the rude materials on which it was obliged to work, and what it actually effected. We must compare

the state of European society at the beginning of the sixth century with what it was at the beginning of the sixteenth. The question to be decided is not, whether, during this period, the state of society, morally or intellectually considered, was perfect, or all that could be desired; but whether the Church constantly exerted herself for its advancement, and whether, at the end of the period, an advance had been effected as great as under the circumstances could be reasonably expected. Judged in this way, the Church, to say the least, has nothing to fear. During that thousand years, nearly all was effected that has been effected for modern society, and we fearlessly assert that there is not a Protestant country in Europe that can at this moment show a social state in advance of what had then been reached.

But our concern is now more especially with literature. It must be remembered that literature in Greece and Rome, in their palmiest days, was but slightly diffused. Even under the Roman empire, when some schools were established by the public, there was nothing like a public system of education. At the commencement of the sixth century, as we may learn from Guizot and others, the civil schools of the empire were nearly all destroyed, and theological schools had not yet been established. Now, if the Church had been hostile to literature, here was the precise state of things she would have desired. If ignorance was what she loved and wished to perpetuate, here was ignorance to her heart's content, and the condition of its perpetuation. But what is the conduct of the Church? She immediately sets to work to establish schools, the great monasterial schools, cathedral or episcopal schools, and parochial schools. So early as 529, we find the Council of Vaison in France urging the establishment of country schools. In the beginning of the sixth century arose the cathedral schools in Spain, where children, offered by their parents, were to be educated under the eye of the bishop, and to dwell under one roof.* In the same century arose, too, the schools of the Benedictine monks, which soon spread themselves over the whole Western Church. Of these, the most celebrated was that of the island of Lerins, founded by St. Honoratus, and which produced Maximus, Faustus, Hilary, Cæsarius, Vincent, Eucherius, Salvius, and many other eminent men and scholars. The school of Seville, in Spain, was justly renowned. Of this school, Mariana, the Spanish historian, says, "that, as if from

* Concil. Toletano, ii. Can. i.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »