'C' 
 
 
 V2‘ 
 
 .'C' 
 
7 1/ ‘Bxsqo 
 
 S6a 
 
 ^’NEILL LIBRARY 
 BOSTON COI.LFGE 
 
I 
 
% 
 

 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 \ 
 
 » . 
 
 / / 
 
 
 • - • *'. 
 
COMPRISING 
 
 Reviews, Lectures, and Essays, 
 
 O N 
 
 Historical, Theological, and Miscellaneous Subjects. 
 
 By M. J. SPALcr^^D.D. 
 
 Archbishop of Baltimo^^^-, 
 
 QuKcumque in foliia descripsil . . . 
 
 Digerit in numerum,. 
 
 Ne turbaca voleut rapidis liidibi-ia ventia. 
 
 What time and place disjoin, is here combined. 
 
 Leas sporting winds disperse the flying leaves.—VinorL 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 
 VoL. I. — Ills TORI CAL. 
 
 
 Sixth Edition, Revised and Greatly Enlaroed. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 Published by John Murphy & Cc. 
 
 182 Baltimore Street. 
 
 1875. 
 
 POST’ON COLl^EGE LIBRARY 
 
 •’VVL, MAS3, 
 
 'T • 
 
ENTKnKD. according to an Act of Congress, in’ the year 1866, by 
 Wkbb, Gill <fe Lkvkuing, in the Cierk's Office of the District 
 Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. 
 
 Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1866, 
 B Y J 0II N M U K r II Y, 
 
 in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Maryland. 
 
 I 
 
 69185 
 
Preface to the Fourth Edition. 
 
 Eleven years ago, the first edition of the following work wcs, 
 
 published, and it was speedily followed by two others. The interest 
 
 awakened in the public mind by the Know-Nothing movement, tlion b.t 
 
 its highest point of excitement, caused many non-Catholics, who had 
 
 never previously examined the merits of the Catholic Church, to read • 
 
 with eagerness every thing which fell in their way having reference to 
 
 the great religious question, now become one of vast political import- 
 
 ance. The result was most favorable to the cause of truth. The 
 
 Catholic Church courts, and she is benefited by earnest inquiry ; she has 
 
 no concealment. It was found, that the charges made against Catholics 
 
 were wholly unfounded, and that they originated in blind prejudice, 
 
 aggravated by interested motives. The leaders of the movement could 
 
 hope to obtain power and lucrative office, only by passing over the 
 
 ruins of the Catholic Church. Those unprincipled men were happily 
 
 foiled in their unworthy efforts, and the Church came out of the conflict 
 
 much stronger than she had gone into it; thus adding another to the 
 
 thousand brilliant victories she had achieved, in the battle-fields of the 
 
 ' % 
 
 world and of history, over the unbridled passions of men. 
 
 The Introductory Address refers to the state of things which existed 
 in this Country in the Spring and Summer of 1855, while the storm of 
 persecution was brewing against the Church; and though the popular 
 excitement against the Catholics has happily, to a great extent, sii:ce 
 passed away, or at least been greatly calmed down, and has.been suc¬ 
 ceeded by more just and liberal sentiments, yet it has been thought vvell 
 to preserve the Address in the present edition, with some modifications, 
 partly as an historical remembrancer of old-time prejudice, and partly 
 because it treats of subjects which are of more than passing interest, 
 and which may again come up, should another attempt be made to put 
 down the Church by popular clamor and unreasoning bigotry. A 
 
 feeble effort of the kind was made a few months ago, but it seems to 
 
 *■ 
 
 have awakened no echo in the popular mind, which can seldom be a 
 second time deceived in the same direction. 
 
 I * 
 
 To the Essays, Reviews, and Lectures contained in the previous 
 editions, we have in this added many new ones, some of the latter hav- 
 
4 
 
 Preface to the Fourth Edition. 
 
 ing been .written since the former were issued. According to the judg¬ 
 ment of perhaps over-partial friends, these are considered of sufTicient 
 importance, to be preserved in a more permanent form than in the 
 columns of Magazines and Reviews, ^he additional matter, thus given 
 to the public in the present edition, amounts to upwards of one hundred 
 and sixty pages, including the new notices prefixed to most of the new¬ 
 ly published articles. 
 
 While I have sought carefully to revise all the papers contained in 
 these Volumes—now amounting to forty-seven—I could not correct the 
 style or modify the tone of them, without re-writing the whole; a task 
 rendered impossible by numerous and engrossing occupations. As 
 some of them were written as far back as twenty years, it is but natural 
 to suppose that they occasionally exhibit more spirit and heat in argu¬ 
 ment, than the cooler temper and riper taste of advancing years would 
 fully approve. While I am free to make this acknowledgment, justice 
 to my own convictions and feelings requires me to state, that in regard 
 t;o the facts alleged, I have nothing to retract or even materially to 
 modify, and that in the tone and temper I do not even now believe, that 
 I set down ought in malice, or with any other than the good intent of 
 correcting error and establishing truth, without assuming the aggres- • 
 sive, except for the sake of what I believed to be the legitimate defense 
 of the Church of God. 
 
 Such as these papers are, they are again offered to an impartial 
 public, with an earnest wish, that they may not prove wholly unprofit¬ 
 able to the cause of historic truth and of true Religion. 
 
 Baltimore, Easier Monday, 1836. 
 
 J 
 
 Announcement of a New Edition. 
 
 Archbishop Spalding had intended to issue a complete and uniform edition of 
 all his works; and he was occupied with this task when his last illness came upon him. 
 The new and revised edition of the History OF the Reformation, the Evidences 
 OF Catholicity, and the Miscellanea, which is now offered to the Public, was 
 prepared by Archbishop Spalding himself—the corrections and additions being from 
 his own hand. To the Evidences of Catholicity, as the reader will perceive, he has 
 added his Pastoral^ Letter on the Infallibility of the Pope; and to the History of the 
 Reformation, he has appended an Article entitled: Rome and, Geneva. 
 
 The Li.fe of Bishop Flaget ahd the Sketches of Kentucky, which Archbishop Spalding intended to 
 re-write and piiblLsh in one volume, are not contained in the present edition of his works, since 
 the corrections and additions, which it had been his purpose to make, are incomplete. 
 
 Baltimore, Sept. 8,1875, 
 
4 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 pR££jlC5, .... . V 
 
 INRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 An intolerant spirit invoked against Catholics—Bigotry an implacable monster—The danger of 
 fostering the mob spirit—Features in the present anti-Catholic crusade—Cruel treatment of a 
 Catholic priest—Our adversaries virtually yielding us the victor}' in fair argument—Their numerous 
 inconsistencies—The Newark outrage—The manliness of the American character—Whence danger 
 is to be apprehended to the.Ilepublic —The “bats and the eagles”—Hoping for better things—The 
 accusations against us—Is the Catholic Church intolerant?—Or uncharitable?—Latitudinarianism, 
 not charity—Principles of the Church in regard to persecution—Has she ever persecuted as a 
 Church?—Third canon of Lateran—The Inquisition—John Huss—Catholic and Protestant perse¬ 
 cution since the reformation—Intolerance in America—Who originated it, and who gave the first 
 example of toleration ?—Parallel between Catholic and Protestant countries in the matter of 
 persecution—Are Catholics the enemies of republican government ?—What Catholicity and Pro¬ 
 testantism have done for human liberty—Charles Carroll of Carrolton—Washington and the 
 Catholics—The temporal power of the Popes—Declarations of Archbishop Carroll and the American 
 bishops—Letter to the Pope—Are American Catholics a separate community ?—Archbishop Carroll 
 and Bishop Dubourg—Foreigners—What they have done for the country—“ The foreign vote” 
 
 _Foreign radicals and infidels—The naturalization laws—The common school system—What the 
 
 Catholic Church says to her members—Her efforts to promote peace and order—Her charity fbr 
 all mankind—Archbishop Kenrick’s Pastoral. ....... . xvii 
 
 VOL. I. —PART I. HISTORICAL. 
 
 I. CHUKCH HISTORY.—THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 "alma and Palmer as historians—Rome and Oxford—Gratuitous assertions—Promises of Christ in 
 favor of the church—Essential and Non-essential doctrines—Bishop W'hittingham—Puseyism— 
 Palmer’s division—I’urity of early church—The Age of persecution—Donatists—Striking avowal— 
 Peter in Rome The “Thundering Legion”— arcani —Testimonies of Saints Ignatius 
 and Justin on Holy Kucharist—Cases of Popes Victor and Stephen—The Primacy—St. Irenteus— 
 The Cross of Constantine—Early hereisies—Church of Rome—Story of Liberius and of Honorius 1. 
 —Monastic Life—Holy Virginity—Nestorius—St. Cyril of Alexandria—St Patrick—Eariy British 
 churches—Primitive Irish churche8--St. Simeon Stylites—“Rank Popery”—Early “abuses and 
 corruptions”—Wisdom of the Church—The Seventh and Eighth General Councils. 17 
 
 II. CHURCH HISTORY.—THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 A different division suggested—Triumphs of the Church over barbarism—Missionaries sent by Rome 
 
 —The Ages of Faith—Auricular Confession—Testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian Necta- 
 
 rius and the Penitentiary—1‘useyite view of the Holy Eucharist—Paschasius Kadbert and 
 Berengarius—Temporal authority of the Pope and Bishops—Decretals of Isidore—Prerogatives of 
 the Roman Pontiffs—Pope Julius I.—Greek Schism—Order of pre-emiuence—Michael Cerularius 
 —Shaving the beard—The Nicene Canons—Edifying incident of St Anselm—Modern .Anglican 
 parsons—Vision of “ Roman attempts at usurpation”—Have the promises of Christ failed ?—The 
 Roman Primacy acknowledged by the early Greek Church—And at Councils of Lyons and Florence 
 —When was the doctrine of the Primacy defined ?—Purgatory—Transubstantiatiou—Indulgeuces 
 —Protestant—Penitential works—Repudiating the debt—The Rosary—“The pure and 
 holy One”—Temporal power of the Pope—Its influence on civilization. 37 
 
 III. CHURCH HISTORY.—SINCE THE REFORMATION 
 
 Necessity of calm impartiality—Protestant and Catholic views of Reformation—Wickliffe and Huss 
 
 Oriental languages—Foreign and British reformation—Luther and Carlostadt—Curious unachroii. 
 
 ism—Luther and Episcopacy—Anglican branch of the reformation—“ Scruples of Henry VIII.”_ 
 
 The new Gospel light—The Anglican Pope—Royal prerogative predominant—Cromwell Vicar 
 
 . (') 
 
8 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 General—Base servility of first Anglican Bishops—^Fisher and Moore—Burning Protestants and 
 Catholics—Palmer’s theory of Anglican reformation examined—Downright tyranny—Trait of noble 
 independence—Edward VI.—Married clergy— Improvements of Anglican liturgy—Return to unity 
 under Wary—Bull of St. Pius V.—Henry’s divorce—Reformation in Ireland—How the Anglican 
 church was persecuted'm Ireland—Dr. Lingard’s testimony and proofs—Anglican saints—Ridley— 
 Macaulay’s portrait of Cranmer—A parallel—Infidelity of Protestant origin—Anglican infidels— 
 Suppression of Anglican convocation—Church and state—Where Voltaire learned infidelity— 
 Infidels in Protestant Europe—French clergy during the Revolution—Did the French Revolution 
 make any Protestant martyrs ?—Conclusion, - -- - .....57 
 
 IV. LITERATURE AND THE ARTS IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 Importance of the subject—Writers who have treated it—Division—A Colossus falling—Incursions 
 of the Northmen—A deluge—Beautiful Italy—Awful devastation—New dynasties—Christianity 
 triumphant over barbarism—Civilization—Idterary history—Tenth century—Gradual revival—Its 
 causes—Golden age of Leo X.—Latin language in liturgy—And the Monastic institute—Elevation 
 of woman—Modern languages—And poetry—Paper—Art of Printing—Illuminated manuscripts— 
 Universities—Schools of Law and Medicine—Musical Notes—Organs—Bells—Mariner’s compass— 
 Geographical discoveries—Commerce—First Bank—Post Office—Newspapers—Spectacles—Gun¬ 
 powder—Stone coal—Arithmetical numbers—Algebra—Glass—Stained Glass—Agriculture—Botany 
 —Clocks—Painting revived—Silk introduced—Gothic style of Architecture—Leaning tower of 
 Pisa—Conclusion, - -- - .......... . -77 
 
 V. LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY.—LIBRARIES. 
 
 Modern history unfair—A great conspiracy against the truth—Whence this unfairness in English 
 writers—Robbery and sacrilege—Origin of modern mammonism—Persecution of slander—What 
 Protestants have said in favor of the Monk.s—l.<eibnitz—Ellendorf—Edmund Burke—Raising up 
 the lowly—Giving asylum to the oppressed—Bishop Tanner—Mallet—Drake—Sharon Turner— 
 Bates—Quarterly Review—Origin of Libraries—Ancient Christian Libraraes—Cathedral and Mo¬ 
 nastic Libraries—Monks transcribing boobs—And collecting them into Libraries—Care of books 
 
 enjoined by rule—Zeal of Monks in saving books—Principal monastic collections of Manuscripts_ 
 
 Scarcity of books—Agency of the Universities—Religious women engaged as copyists—Writing 
 with golden and silver ink—Illuminated margins—The Scriptorium~}ilf:&na of augmenting Libra¬ 
 ries—Encouragement afforded by Roman Pontiffs—What we owe to patient Monastic labor—Sum¬ 
 mary of what the Clergy and Monks have done for Literature, gg 
 
 I 
 
 VI. SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE “ DARK” AGES., 
 
 Protestant boasting—Light and darkness—Revival of letters and the Reformation—Early and recent 
 persecution of slander compared—Gibbon—Protestant theory—Lame argument—E’ai-lv Christian 
 Schools—Plato and Aristotle—Irish Schools—And Irish Scholars—Cathedral Schools—Charle¬ 
 magne and Alfred—Councils ordering the erection of Schools—The Monasteries—And monastic 
 Schools—VV’^hat was therein taught—Schools for the nobility—Signing in cipher—Female Academics 
 —Literary ladies—Universities—In Italy—England—And France—Statement of Danielo examined 
 —Curious incident hi the history of the University of Paris—Three qualities of mediaeval Schools 
 and Universities stated and established—Who first founded Free Schools?—Glance at modoru 
 Universities. - 113 
 
 VII. INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 Terms defined—What is liberty?—Which is the best form of government?—Direct and indirect influ¬ 
 ence—Tendency of Christian teaching—Division of the subject—Theoretical view—Equalizing the 
 social condition—Form of Church government—A happy blending of different elements—The 
 elective principle-Deliberative assemblies—Authority of the Pope—Practical influence of the 
 Church—In the early ages—In the middle ages—Rescuing Europe from barbarism—Means em¬ 
 ployed for humanizing society—Two Protestant testimonies—Slavery and the serf system—Struggle 
 between the Cross and the Crescent—The Crusades - Their influence ou the social condition—The 
 Free Cities—In Spain-In Germany—And in Italy—Lombard League—Italian Republics—Quelphs 
 and Ghibeilines—The deposing power—Republics of Sau Marino and Andorra- The monastic insti¬ 
 tute—Teaching of mediaeval theologians— Magna Charta —William Wallace, Robert Bruce, and 
 William Tell—Influence of the reformation on liberty—In Germany—And in England—Catholic 
 patriots during the American revolution—Conclusion, - - 131 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 9 
 
 Vlll. AGE OF POPE GREGORY VII.—THE DEPOSING POW ER. 
 
 [mportance of the subject—Society struggling into form—Hildebrand—Ilis cotemporaries—Histori¬ 
 cal portraits and parallels—Napoleon’s opinion of Gregory VII. —How the Pontiff lia.s been attacked 
 by his enemies—And how defended by Voigt—The great idea of Gregory—His relaiious to society 
 as its spiritual head—A torrent of abuse stemmed—The question of investitures—Ancient mode 
 of nominating to bishoprics—Contest between the Popes and the emperors of Germany—Papal 
 election—A vital question—St. Peter Damian—His relations to Gregory—Simony and disorder 
 among the clergy—Hildebrand unanimously elected Pope—His earlier career—Hi.s experience, 
 coolness, and wisdom—Not exceedingly stern—His wonderful activity—His correspondence—His 
 moral courage—Ilis temporal relations to society—Distracted state of Europe—Princes swearing 
 fealty to the Pope—His protectorate recognized and invoked—Gregory not ambitious—His long 
 struggle with Henry IV.—The Nero of the twelfth century—Otto of Nordheim—Summary of tho 
 whole contest—Moderation of Gregory—How and why the Pontiff declared Henry deposed—A stroke 
 for liberty—Opinion of Voigt, - . 151 
 
 IX. THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST.—ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 The Reformers before the Reformation—Itonnechose and D’Aubigne compared—The former as an 
 historiun—Is he ingenuous or fair?—Inaccuracies—Scope of his work—The Schism a fiery ordeal 
 for the Church—From which she came forth unscathed—Scandals to be expected—Morality of the 
 Popes—Origin of the Schism—The papacy “ stooping to conquer”—Contest between Boniface VIII. 
 and Philip the Fair—The death of Boniface and election of his successor—Intrigues of Philip—The 
 Popes reside at Avignon—Their policy—Return to Rome—Election of Urban VI.—Defection of Car¬ 
 dinals—They set up Clement VII.—Who moves to .Avignon—Political ambition of princes—The evil 
 and the remedy come from France—University of Paris—Council of Pisa—.And of Constance— 
 Election of Martin V.—End of the Schism—Remarks—Triumph of the Church - Relation of the 
 Pope to a general council—Reforming the Church “iu its head and members”—The succession not 
 interrupted—Two objections answered—Church emerged from the Schism stronger than ever— 
 And so did the papacy, 169 
 
 X. JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES.—THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 New trials lead to new triumphs of the Church—Character of John Huss—A traitor in the camp— 
 Seeking popularity—Wickliffe and his doctrines—These necessarily lead to civil commotions— 
 Translated into Bohemia—University of Prague—The German and Bohemian students—Carthage- 
 nian hatred of Rome—Writers on Huss and his disciples—Persecution no Catholic Nnet—Imperial 
 laws on the subject—AVhat were the doctrines of Iluss?—And what their influence on society?— 
 What means did he adopt to spread them?—Was he consistent?—Had he a fair trial at Constanoe? 
 —Was the council cruel towards him ?—Were the fathers guilty of breach of faith ?—Keeping faith 
 with heretics—Case of Jerome of Prague—Horrible exces.ses of the Hussites—Ziska ‘-of the Cup” 
 —Pillage, murder, and sacrilege—A horrid martial instrument of music--A dark and bloody 
 monument to the memory of Huss, • - - - - - - - - ^ - - 191 
 
 XI. THE SPANISH INQUISITION.—PRESCOTT’S VIEW. 
 
 Interest of Spanish history—Evils arising from the French revolution—Can Spain become Protestant' 
 
 _Prescott’s Ferdinand and Isabella—His character as an historian—His prejudices —His authorities 
 
 on the Spanish Inquisition—Who was Limborch?—His reliability—Character of Llorente—Writers 
 on the other side—Prescott’s view—His statements examined—Three propositions established—Was 
 the Spanish Inquisition a religious or a political institution?—Its origin traced—A parallel case— 
 Remarkable testimony of Ranke—Tlie alleged cruelties of the Inquisition—Are they exaggerated? 
 
 _Authority of Voltaire—Of Bourgoing—And of Limborch—The civil and ecclesiastical courts— 
 
 ‘•Justice and Mercy”—Mod* of procedure—.Motive for secresy—Torture—.1 urisprudeiice of the 
 {jjne_In what court was the final decision given?—Count I’olnitz—English and Genevan Inquisi¬ 
 tion_Was counsel allowed the accused?—Is the Ctitholic Church responsible for the Spanish 
 
 Inquisition ?—Agency of the Roman Pontiffs—Their efforts to restrain cruelty—The Portuguese 
 Inquisition, - ^13 
 
 XII. THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND.—BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 The late religious war in Switzerland—Policy of Frtince and Austria—Intrigues of England—Char 
 acter of the war—Whence the liberties of Switzerland—Analogy between the late struggle, ami 
 that preceding' the Reformation—Berne the center of operations—M. de Haller’s point of view— 
 
10 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 His charaoSjr as an historian—His authorities—Wavering of Berne—Tortuous policy—Ilovf she 
 embraced the Reform—The dear and the pears—Treacherous perjury of Berne—Zwinglian Council 
 —Its decrees—lieligious liberty crushed—Riot and sacrilege—Proceedings of Bernese commission¬ 
 ers—Downright tyranny—Tiie minister Farel—His fiery zeal—An appalling picture—A parallel— 
 Priests hunted down—Character of the ministers—Avowal of Oapito—The glorious privilege of 
 private judgment—How consisteiit!—Persecution of brother Protestants—Drowning the Anabap¬ 
 tists—Iteformation in Geneva—Rapid summary of horrors—The Rernese army of invasion—The 
 sword and the Bible—Forbearance of Catholics—Affecting incident at Soleure—The war of Capped 
 — Points of resemblance—An armed apostle—A prophet quailing before danger—Battle of Capped 
 —Death of Zwingle—Triumph of Catholic cantons—Treaty of Peace, .... ^34 
 
 XIII. PKESCOTT’S CONQUEST OF MEXICO. 
 
 Article /.—Character of the Conquerors. 
 
 Prescott as an historian—Compared with other .\merican writers—His style and manner—Qualities 
 essential to an historian—Prescott’s research—His authorities—His accuracy—His impartiality— 
 His religious prejudices—The ghost of the Inquisition haunts him—His gross charges against the 
 Catholic Church—His enthusiasm awakened—Romantic character of the conquest—Rapid sketch 
 of its history—Character of the conquerors—Hernando Cortes—Compared with ancient generals— 
 Was the conquest juslsfiable ?—Principles and facts hearing on this question—Horrid human sacri¬ 
 fices among the Aztecs—The Spaniards and the Puritans compared—M ere the conquerors wantoniy 
 cruel? Facts and specifications alleged and explained—Palliating circumstances—Seizure of Mon¬ 
 tezuma—And execution of Guatamoziu—Prescott’s testimony—Spanish conquest of Mexico and 
 English conquest of India compared—Cortes and Ixird Clive—Macaulay, .... 250 
 
 XIV. PRESCOTT’S CONQUEST OF MEXICO. ^ 
 
 Article II .— The Religious Point of View of the Conquest. 
 
 Religious point of view necessary—Noble sentiment of Lope de Vega—Spaniards much influenced by 
 it—Prescott’s testimony—The Spanish cavalier, a soldier of the Cross—Injustice done his character 
 by Prescott—The age of chivalry compared with the present—Motives which actuated Catholic and 
 Protestant navigators and pioneers—A holy Crusade—Religious character of Cortes—His standard 
 —Stirring address to his soldiers—The Cross unfurled—And animating the army-Zeal for the 
 conversion of the natives—Religious rites and worship—Relative adaptation of Catholic and Pro¬ 
 testant systems for making proselytes—Prescott’s theory examined—Remarkable incidents showing 
 the piety of the conquerors—Their zeal sometimes too fiery—Catholic missionaries—They oppose 
 cruelty to the natives—As well as all forced conversions—Las Casas and Olmedo—Alleged intempe¬ 
 rate zeal of Cortes—Idols cast down—Explanation and defense—Charitable zeal of Olmedo—Aqullar 
 and other missionaries—Religious ceremonies on launching the fleet—And at the termination of the 
 gie^e—Missionaries after the Conquest—Destruction of the Teocallis—Great number of converts 
 among the Aztecs—How accounted for—Prescott’s theory—“ The Aztec wor.ship and Romish 
 ritual 1”—Alleged similarity between the two—Curious coincidences—Alleged miracles—Loss and 
 gain to the Church—Conclusioli, - 276 
 
 XV. EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE NORTH WEST. 
 
 First Paper. — Bancroft's Account. 
 
 Bancroft as an historian—An old Relation—C&ihoWc missionary zeal—Spirit of Catholic and Pro¬ 
 testant colonists compared—M’ho established the first missions in North America?—The Franciscans 
 and Jesuits—The first Jesuit missionaries—The first college—And the first hospital—The Ursulines 
 in Canada—The mission to the Ilurons—Fathers De Brebeuf and Daniel—Their manner of life— 
 The chief .Ahasistari—Mission to the Algonquins—And to the I'hippewas—“The New England 
 Elliott”—Father Jogues—And Father Bressani—Mission among the Abenakis—.Mohawks—Onou- 
 dagas—And Cavugas—Extent of the missions—Penetrating westward—Father Marquette—His 
 death—Subsequent history of the Jesuit missions—Policy of England, - - - 298 . 
 
 XVI. EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE NORTH WEST. 
 
 Second Paper .— The Huron Mission. 
 
 4 beautiful spectacle—Reclaiming the savage—Details of the Mission among theHurons—The nation 
 of Christians—An Indian council—.A touching incident—A picture of primitive fervor—Edifying 
 anecdotes—Triumphs of grace—.\ttajck of the Huron villages—Father Daniel—His glorious mar- 
 
t^rdom—TIis virtues—Another attack by the Iroquois—Heroic conduct of Fathers de Brebeuf and 
 I-alleiiient—They are made prisoners—Devoted ness of their neophytes—The glories of the Huron 
 Mission scattered. 211 
 
 XVII. EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE NORTH WEST. 
 
 Third Paper—Fathers De Brebeuf and Lallement. 
 
 dartyrdom of Fathers de Brebeuf and Lallement—Their remains solemnly interred—Their heroism 
 —Details of their martyrdom—Horrible cruelties—Life of Father Lallement—His reasons for 
 devoting himself to the Indian missions—The Aloysius of the Huron missions—And the Xavier— 
 Father John De Bi-ebeuf—Sketch of his life—His first attempt to found the Huron missioji— 
 Ilis ardent zeal—And spirit of prayer—His love of the cross—He pants for martyrdom—His diffl- 
 culries and sufferings among the Hurons—He is exposed to imminent danger of his life—His 
 humility—His unceasing labors—His calmness—And noble courage—The results of his zeal—The 
 Apostle of the Hurons, - 322 
 
 XVIII. WEBSTER’S BUNKER HILL SPEECH. 
 
 Relative Treatment of the American Aborigines by the English and Spanish Colonists. 
 
 Mr. Webster as an orator—Compared with Preston, Calhoun, and Clay—Mr. Webster’s omissions— 
 His drift —K sound principle—But inconclusive reasoning—Different policy adopted by Eng-lish 
 and Spanish colonists—“ The Anglo Saxon blood”—A parallel case—Cause of aversion to Spain— 
 The reformation of Luther—Its influence on liberty—” The middle class”—Luther and the peasants 
 —Protestant opinions—Religious element in Spanish colonization—Irving’s testimony—Portu¬ 
 guese colonists—Catholic and Protestant navigators—Who introduced slavery?—Alleged cruelties 
 of the Spaniards—Las Casas—Cruelties practi.sed by the Puritans—Their treatment of the Aborigi¬ 
 nes—The Pokanokets—Shrewd bargaining—King Philip—The Narragansetts—Their extermination 
 —The Pequods—” The godly Stone”—A horrible conflagration—Settling accounts—“A dark shade 
 on the soil of .Massachusetts,^’ - .......... 333 
 
 ^ XIX. OUR COLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 Article I.—Union of Church and State. 
 
 Why we treat this subject—Who are, and who have been the persecutors?—Meaning of the term 
 Blue Laws —Effort at concealment—Bancroft’s reserve—Other historians of New England—Charac¬ 
 ter of the Puritans—Their good and their bad qualities—Their treatment of the Aborigines—Their 
 inconsistency—Two classes of Blue l.aws—Union of Church and Stare—Conformity—The franchise 
 —Established religion —Observance of the Sabbath—Severe enactments—Law against priests— 
 Spirit of per.secution in New York—Miscellaneous laws—Indians and wolves—Use of tobacco— 
 Planner of dress—Cut of the hair—Matrimony—And divorce—By whom were the Blue Laws 
 repealed?—Some Blue liaws of Virginia—The land of “steady habits”—Catholic Colony of 
 Maryland - 368 
 
 XX. OUR COLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 Article II. — Heretics, Quakers, and Witches. 
 
 Two characteristics of the Puritans—Scenting out heresy and witchcraft—Preaching and practice - 
 Consistency—Winch colony deserves the palm—Roger Williams—His principles and banishment 
 — Laws against Quakers—How executed—A strong protest—How answered—Persecution avowed 
 and proved from the Bible—Witchcraft in New England—Why so prevalent there—Exposition of 
 Cotton Mather—Shrewdness of the witches—How they were exterminated—“ Eight firebrands of 
 hell” Hanging first, and trying afterwards—Humorous passage from Irving, ... 369 
 
 VOL. II. —PART II. THEOLOGICAL. 
 
 XXI. THE SPIRIT OP THE AGE. 
 
 Temporal and Eternal, 
 
 Is this an eniitrhtened age?—Enlightenment and empiricism—Material progress—Constant agitation 
 and fever—Rest and motion —Self complacency—Two classes of extravagance pointed out—And 
 Blubtrated—Doctrine of pr'gress applied to religion—Degradimi religion to an earthly standard — 
 
12 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Reason and faith—Incident related by St. .4ngustiiie—Ueasoninw backwards-A tower of Habel— 
 Modern systems of ptiilo.sophy—I'nie and false liberty—Kvil.s growing out of sectarianism—(larrj • 
 ingout a false principle - Private judgment—Tne great struggle and its final issue— Protestantism 
 and enlightenntent—.\merican infidelity — l-’arailel lines of reasoning adopted by the sects and 
 by infidels—Ftuiaticism and infidelity — Mammonism—.Money and virtue—Mammon worship in 
 churche.s—Utilitarianism—\Vr')ng views of education—Religious indifference and latitudinariauisin 
 —Frightful moral disorders—Fruits of Protestantism—The great problem of the age, - 383 
 
 XXII. THE CHAEGE OP IDOLATRY. 
 
 Honor and Invocation of Saints, 
 
 The curve and the straight line—The issue of the Puseyite movement—Its benefits—Origin of the 
 controver.sy concerning Idolatry in the Oatholic (’hurch—Palmer and Dr. Wiseman—Charge by tho 
 former—How met by the latter—Palmer's criterion applied against himself—Ilis line of reasoning 
 unfair—Three propositions laid down—And proved—I'atholic doctrine stated—Testimony by the 
 Council of Trent—The Missal and the I'.reviary — Why are the Saints honf)red and invoked?— 
 Passage from the late Pope's encyclical letter explained—Guardian angels—Objected passages 
 explain themselves—Prayer of Cardinal Bona—Incident in the life of St. Alphonsus I.iguori—St. 
 Francis di Girolamo—The Pope's encyclical again—Pfilmer’s Italic.s—The climax of Idolatry- 
 Coldness and enthusitism in devotion—The devotion to the Virgin — Beautiful passage of Ur. Wise¬ 
 man— Possible abuse no argument—Palmer’s inconsistency—Passages from the ancient fathers— 
 IIow he explains them — Ilis glaring perversion of authorities —His work of supererogation—Faith 
 and practice of the early Church—Beau."y and sublimity of the Catholic doctrine—Devotion to the 
 Virgin—A golden chain, ... .......... 397 
 
 XXIII. THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 
 
 Faith and Works. 
 
 Harmony of Catholic doctrines—Their scope and influence—The great Physician—His religion medi¬ 
 cinal—The doctrine of iraMsfaction intimately connected with that of the Atonement—Standing at 
 the foot of the cross —The cenrer of the religious system—Source of light and heat—The Atonemen'^ 
 sufficient—And made for all—Our co-operation necessary for its application to us—Denying our¬ 
 selves and entering into the sacrificial spirit of Christ—Scriptural proofs—Practice of the saints— 
 Motive for corportil austerities—I’he cros.s ever present to the Chri.^titin mind—The sacrifice of the 
 altar and that of the Cross—Protestant view of the Atonement —Faith and works—Halting half 
 way — The more comfortable and the safer way — ( austic passage of Tertullian—Two roads to 
 heaven—Palmer’s view—His arguments superficial and captious—Temporal puni.shment for sin 
 already forgiven—Scriptural examples —Palmer’s explanation ofthem refuted—His paltry quibbling 
 —Charge of absurdity answered—Reasons for the temporal penalty remaining—Palmer grows 
 pathetic—Troubling the peace of consciences—Unearthly character of the doctrine—The blessings 
 it has produced, - .... . .... 418 
 
 XXIV. THE CONFESSIONAL. 
 
 Tactics of its Enemies. 
 
 Strong presumptive evidence of Catholicity—The proud position of the Church—Phases of the 
 warfare against her—Appeal to passion against truth—Luther’s tactics—Those of other reformers 
 similar—Protestant and infidel arguments against Catholicity compared—The vilest of all the 
 modes of attack—Closing the church against ladies—Books teeming with obscenity—A burning 
 shame for Christian ministers—Sympathy with infidels—Who was Slichelet?—.\n amusing inci¬ 
 dent—Translator of Michelet—A horrid picture of woman—Mohammedanism revived—.Methodist 
 camp-meetings—A '‘female Jesuit’’—Incarnation of Satan”—Transcendentalism—.A rare conso¬ 
 lation!—“French bulls”—Inconsistency and contradiction—Michelet as an historian and logician 
 —His premises false—And his reasoning illogical—Blindness of bigotry—The serpent in paradise— 
 
 A portrait—“The end justifies the means”—Great honor to the Church—The beams and the mote 
 — The confe.ssioual considered by the light of experience —A palpable absurdity—A gross libel upon ' 
 the sex—Course adopted by the Protestant preachers—Extracts from our theologians—Parallel 
 «ases—“ Whipping hypocrisy”—IVhence all the clamor acainst the Confessional—Did the priesU 
 introduce it?—What motive could they' have had?—^Vas it pjssible to make the change?— 
 The question of innovation tested—History appealed to—Prescription—Our Saviour and the 
 Pharisees, ---- . ... 435 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 O 
 
 VOL. II. —PART III. MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 XXV. CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES. 
 
 Article I.—England and France—Holland and Belghim. 
 
 ttifluenee of Catholicity and Protestantism on material interests—Current theory—The aritumeni 
 wholly inconclusive—And the facts assumed, hut not proved—England’s prosperity—How e.xplained 
 —Rise and decline cf Catholic powers—Why God permits the wicked to prosper—Masses of Eng¬ 
 land’s population—Catholic Ireland—England imd France compared—In which is the bulk of the 
 people more comfortable?—laying’s argument—French and English honesty and politeness—Hol¬ 
 land and Relgium compared—Belgian railroads—Charity in Catholic and Protestant countries— 
 Condition of the poor—Relative prosperity of the Catholic and Protestant population of Prussia— 
 The serf system —How long it lingered in Protestant countries—Who have been the best friends and 
 champions of the poor and oppressed ?•• ........ 455 
 
 XXVI CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES. 
 
 Article II.—Germany and Italy. 
 
 The Catholic and Protestant cantons of Switzerland—“enlightened self-interest”—Why the 
 Protestant catitons aremore prosperous—Material condition of Catholic Italy—Italian and Scotch 
 holy days—Mr. Laing’s theory for explaining the alleged social inferiority of the Italians—Italy in 
 ancient and modern times—Influence of climate on popular industry and activity—The Italian 
 poor compared with those of England and Ireland—Mr I/aing’s testimony—The garden-like culture 
 of Italy—Comparative cheerfulness of Protestant sind Catholic nations—Taste for the fine arts— 
 Politeness—Temperance —Testimony of Robert Dale Owen—Comparative morality—Moral condi¬ 
 tion of Sweden—Popular education in Catholic and Protestant countries—The common school 
 system in Au«tria—Liberal policy—Relative instruction of English and Belgian operatives—The 
 Prussian common school system—Religious condition—State of religion at Geneva—Deplorable 
 defection—Protestantism in other European countries—Mr. Laing’s theory to account for the 
 admitted religious superiority of Catholic nations examined—Ills honorable testimony to Catholic 
 faith and piety, - - ............ 472 
 
 XXVII. Cx\THOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES. 
 
 Article III. — England^ as she is and was. 
 
 English boasting—What is the condition of her people?—Has her greatness elevated the masses of 
 her population?—A land of social conrrasta—English pauperism a crime—Frightful condition of 
 English operatives—Summary of evidence on the subject -llow England relieves her poor—The 
 work houses—The dying pauper—Testimony of Dr. ifouthey—No liberty for the poor in England 
 —Iinmoraliry of London —The Anglican esiablishment—England evangelizing the world I—The 
 English ari.sfocracy—Brou.:haiii on English taxation—Mammonism in England and America— 
 Portiait of Daniel O’Connell, - 492 
 
 XXVIII. CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES. 
 
 Article IV.—Ireland and the Irish. 
 
 The great day of reckoning—An historical parallel—Ireland still unconquered—Un-American 
 feeling of hostility to foreigners—Are we really independent of England?—Political nativism- 
 Whatliave foreigners done for the country ?—Why Irishmen are hated—The Iri.sh character—It« 
 lights and shades—English treatment of Ireland—The first period of Ireland’s suffering.s—Protes¬ 
 tant evidence—The second period—The reformation in Ireland—Irish fidelity to the ancient faith 
 —Policy of Elizabeth and the Stuarts—VV’holesale confiscation and butchery—The men of 1782- 
 The Union-Protestant a.sceudency—Emancipation, ........ 5 ()() 
 
 XXIX. CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES. 
 
 Article V.—Italian Society. 
 
 Dickens and Kip—Superficial travelers—Writing for money—Lady tourists—License for gossiping— 
 Character of Dickens as a writer—Baretti and Sharp—Italian contentment.—Two extremes to b« 
 avoided in the social condition—Material comforts-Difiference between the Italians and Americans 
 —Laboring classes in Italy—Italian squalor—Mode of life among Italians-Their sprightliness- 
 
14 
 
 CONTE NT S 
 
 Vivaciry of children—Italians a social people—Their amusements—Gambling—Horse races among 
 them and us compared—Profane swearing—Temperance—General use of wine—Its effects on tem 
 perance and health—Politeness—Meekness amotig the great—Training of children in Italy—A 
 gross charg • against Italian morality refuted—The fashion of employing Cavalieri Serventi- -IIow 
 jt originated, ... ^23 
 
 XXX. CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT COUNTRIES. 
 
 Article VI.—Brazil and the Brazilians. 
 
 Interest of the subject—Qualifications for an impartial traveler—Misrepresenting Catholic doctrine* 
 and practices—Missionary tourists—Mr. Kidder’s misstatements—The llrazilians adoring images— 
 Absurd blunders—Fire-works on the “Sabbath”—Service of the holy week—Decoration of lira- 
 zilian churches—Religious emblems and names—Our Lady of the Snow—Homicides in Brazil and 
 among us—Distributing tracts—A bright youth—The Bible in Brazil-Extracts from it read iu 
 the public schools—“The Bible never proscribed in Brazil”—Inquisitorial censorship—A trick of 
 the Bible society—The Brazilians liberal and tolerant—The Catholic clergy—Slavery in Brazil— 
 Touching practices of piety among the slaves —The religious Brotherhoods—The charity hospital 
 at Rio—Is there any native parry iu Brazil ?—Failure of Mr. Kidder’s mission—His return home— 
 Advantages of clerical celibacy, - ... 53 g 
 
 XXXI. THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. 
 
 Dr. Durbin's Observations in the East. 
 
 The present struggle in the East—The ancient Episcopal Ijees —Alexandria—Antioch—Jerusalem— 
 Constantinople-Statistics of the eastern and western churches in the early ages—Ancient glory 
 and present degradation of the Oriental Churches—picture of desolation—.A vast necropolis— 
 Decrease of population—Testimonies of Dr Frankland and Dr. Durbin—Number of Christians in 
 the Turkish empire—Chastisement inflicted on the Greek schismatics—Their present forlorn con¬ 
 dition—The ouly hope for their restoration—Their discipline in regard to the celibacy of the clergy 
 —Their acknowledged itgreeinent in doctrine with the Roman Catholics—Argument founded thereon 
 in favor of the Catholic Church—Protestant missionaries in the Etist—Have they succeeded?—Dr. 
 Durbin’s admissions—Ilis omissions supplieil in regard to the I’rorestant missions of Hasbejaand 
 Oroomiah —Disunion among the Protestant missionaries—C.atholic missions in the East—Dr. Dur¬ 
 bin’s candid avowal—Statistics—The seven Apocalyptic churches—The church of Philadelphia- 
 Downright popery—Christiau charity recommended, ........ 554 
 
 ' XXXII. ROME, 
 
 As seen by a New Yorker. 
 
 New York and Rome—Superficial books—Candid avowal—Inaccuracies—Colonnade in front of Saiul 
 Peter’s—The ball on tbe dome—St. Mary Major’s- Popes preserving ancient monuments—Italian 
 Ciceroni —Tricks on travelers—“ The t> n.v-eyed sculptor”—Laugiiable mistakes—The Jews in Rome 
 —The chair of St. Peter—Religious services in the Colisseum—Rome not sufficiently progressive— 
 Picture of Rome as the capital of Chiistendom — .Artistic genius of Italy—Liberality towards foreign 
 artists Overbeck—Paintings in churches — Roman churches never closed against worshipers— 
 Roman charity—Beggars—Italian wines—Valuable suggestion—Italian monks—The Vatican— 
 Villa Borghese—Education in Rome—Pope Gregory XVI.—The college of cardinals—General 
 impression made by Rome on our New Yorker, ......... 570 
 
 XXXIII. THE PAPAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 The late Homan revolution—Character of Pius IX —His measures of reform—How received by his 
 subjects—Base ingratitude — Assassination of Rossi and Palma—.A reign of terror—Zambianchi and 
 his band of assassins—Mazzini and his ideaof liberty — Europe indignant—The Pontiff re.-^tored by 
 the Catholic powers —tVho.«e fault was it that Pius IX. did not succeed in effecting political reform? —- 
 Monarchy Sind mob rule—Origin of the papal states—Did the Popes usurp temporal dominion?— 
 Advantages of their being independent sovereigns—Mr. Headley’s Outline Sketch—Statistics 
 of the papal territory—The government an elective monarchy — How the administration i.s con 
 ducted—Mr. Headley’s mistakes and omissions — Board to redress grievances—The Sacra Consulta— 
 Municipal regulations—Opinion of Lnnadoro—The Sacra Ruo’a—.An incident—The advocate of 
 the poor—Charitable and educational institutions cherished by the Papal Government, - 08 c 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 15 
 
 XXXIV. THE PHILADELPHIA RIOTS. 
 
 The Native American Party, 
 
 Dreadful scenes—Will tbey occur again? — Signs of the times— Accident and choice —Foarlest 
 Protestant writers—Ijctter to Mayor Harper—Remote causes of the Riots—Union of hatred— 
 What Catholicity has done for liberty and civilization—And what for this country—Real and 
 nominal freedom—Forecast of Thomas Jefferson—His opinion—Glance at the history of bigotry in 
 the United States—Burning of the Ursuline convent—Rev. Lyman Beecher—And other Protestant 
 ministers—Maria Monk—The Protestant Association—A picture of its spirit and proceedings 
 drawn by a Protestant—Immediate causes of the Riots—Native Americans—“ Spare the Hible ”— 
 Doings of the party—A slander refuted—True State of the case —Ex parte evidence—Attempt to 
 evade responsibility—Agency of the Protestant ministers—Burke's estimate of the Catholic clergy— 
 Address to the Protestant coiftnunity—And to the Catholics—The Church indestructible, - 696 
 
 XXXV. A CHAPTER ON MOBS, 
 
 Ancient and Modern. 
 
 Can Mobs put down truth and virtue? —Nothing new under the sun—Historical retrospect—Past 
 trials and triumphs of the Church—The first Mob crucified Christ—The second stoned St. Stephen 
 —Mobs during the first three centuries—Nero the first instigator of them—Mobs a principal feature 
 in the early persecutions—How they were gotten up—Persecution of slander—Forgery —Early 
 Christians branded as aliens and traitors—Tertullian’s pointed sarcasm—Mob spirit contagious— 
 The great Roman Mob under Diocletian—St. Basil’s graphic description—Sepulchral monument to 
 Christianity—Fate of the persecutors—Mobs powerless—The Cross triumphant—Unalterable meek¬ 
 ness of early Christians under persecution—Mobs since the reformation—Are they not similar in 
 spirit to those directed against Christianity during the first three centuries?—A parting word to 
 
 American Catholics, (^jg 
 
 XXXVI. LAFAYETTE AND PROFESSOR MORSE,.635 
 
 XXXVII. COMMON SCHOOLS,.652 
 
 XXXVIII. THE ASTRONOMICAL CLOCK OF STRASBURO, - - - 685 
 
 XXXIX. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF LIBRARIES IN ANCIENT 
 
 AND MODERN TIMES,.696 
 
 XL. DEMONOLOGY AND THE REFORMATION,.710 
 
 XLI. REV. WILLIAM BYRNE, 729 
 
 XLIL THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION,.73d 
 
 XLIII. ROME AND BERLIN,.74:) 
 
 XLIV. OUR NEW “AMERICAN''LITERATURE,.762 
 
 XLV. BENVENUTO CELLINI,. 
 
 XLVI. ITALIAN LIFE AND MORALS —EFFECTS OF “ROMANISM” 
 
 ON SOCIETY, - 
 
 788 
 
INTRODUCTORY- ADDRESS. 
 
1 
 
 » • ■ • 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 
 V • • 4 
 
 
 S* ' ” * • ’ * ' 
 
 f:' 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS, 
 
 Ca tl)e impartial public; 
 
 ON THE INTOLERANT SPIRIT OF THE TIMES. 
 
 An intolerant spirit invoked against Catholics—Bigotry an implacable monster—The danger of 
 fostering the mob spirit.—Features in the present anti-Catholio crusade—Cruel treatment of a 
 Catholic priest—Our adversaries virtually yielding us the victory in fair argument—Their numerous 
 inconsistencies — The Newark outrage—The manliness of the American character — Whence danger 
 is to be apprehended to the Republic—The “batsand the eagles”—Hoping for better things—The 
 accusations against us—Is the Catholic Church intolerant?—Or uncharitable?—Latitudinarianism, 
 not charity—Principles of the Church in regard to persecution—Has she ever persecuted as a 
 Church?—Third canon of Lateran—The Inquisition—John Huss—Catholic and Protestant perse¬ 
 cution since the reformation—Intolerance in America—Wlio originated it, and who gave the first 
 example of toleration?—Parallel between Catholic and Protestant countries in the matter of 
 persecution— Are Catholics the enemies of republican government?—What Catholicity and Pro¬ 
 testantism have done for human liberty—Charles Carroll of Carrolton—Washington and the 
 Catholics—The temporal power of the Popes—Declarations of Archbishop Carroll and the American 
 Bishops—Letter to the Pope—Are American Catholics a separate community ?—Archbishop arroll 
 and Bishop Dubourg—Foreigners—What they have done for the country—“ The foreign vote” 
 —Foreign radicals and infidels—The naturalization laws—The common school system—What tha 
 Catholic Church says to her members—Her efforts to promote peace and order—Her charity for 
 all mankind—Archbishop Kenrick’s Pastoral. 
 
 That a fierce spirit of intolerance has been lately evoked in this once 
 free country, no candid observer of passing events will deny. Christians 
 of a particular denomination have been selected, as its first victims ; but 
 no one who has studied human nature, as it is developed in the facts of 
 history, will for a moment suppose, that the ruin of Catholics in this 
 country will satisfy the cravings of this fierce Moloch of religious bigotry. 
 As with the tiger, the taste of blood will but sharpen its appetite for new^ 
 victims. So it has been in the past ; so it will be in the future. 
 
 Let no one deceive himself, nor suffer himself to be deceived, in a 
 matter of so vital an importance to all who are sheltered under the glorious 
 llag of our union. Once the barriers, which our noble constitution 
 throws around the civil and religious liberties of all citizens alike, are 
 broken down, no matter under what pretext of excitement, of political 
 expediency, or necessity, there is no telling where the spirit of innovation 
 will stop, or where the evils consequent upon it will be arrested. When 
 a torrent has once broken through the embankment along its margin, it 
 spreads devastation through the entire country ; and the husbandman 
 who has neglected the necessary precautions, while it was yet time, finds 
 
XX 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 out, when it is too late for remedy, that all the fruits of his patient toil 
 liave been swept away or destroyed by the raging- waters. So it will b« 
 precisely, should the checks and balances, which the wisdom and forecast 
 of our fathers have inserted in the constitution, be neglected or set at 
 naught. The torrent of human passions, once it has overleaped this 
 barrier, wdll overwhelm our beautiful country with ruins. All our 
 dearly bought liberties will be virtually destroyed ; property will be no 
 longer secure ; law and order will give place to passion and mob violence ; 
 the dearest of all human rights and privileges,— that of worshiping God 
 according to the dictates of our conscience,— will be annihilated; the 
 beautiful earthly paradise of our happy republic will be changed into a 
 frowning wilderness, filled with horror and desolation : finally, anarchy 
 will take the place of order and good government. The worst possible 
 species of tyranny is that of the mob. Far batter be oppressed by one 
 tyrant, than be crushed and torn by a thousand : far better, have even a 
 Nero* or a Diocletian to lord it over you, than be ruled by that hydra¬ 
 headed monster, called a mob. The solitary tyrant may have some 
 misgivings, or retain some remnant of justice or humanity ; he may at 
 jeast be checked by a sense of personal responsibility, and may tremble on 
 his throne at the fear of popular retribution : the many-headed despot ha.s 
 neither reason, nor justice, nor humanity, nor conscience, nor fear of God 
 or man, to restrain him from deeds of violence. 
 
 For tlie truth of this picture, we appeal with confidence to all history ; 
 from the period when an excited mob cried out against the Blessed 
 Jesus at the tribunal of Pilate ; — Crucify Him ! crucify Him !! — down 
 to the other day, -when another mob, composed of persons calling 
 themselves Christians, raised fiendish shouts of triumph at the tearing 
 down and trampling under foot of the Cross, which had ornamented the 
 spire of a Catholic Church in Chelsea ! At every time and in every 
 place, the mob has always been the same ruthless, savage, untameable 
 monster ; the Christian scarcely less so than the pagan.' 
 
 Unhappily, we need not go far back into times past, nor travel far 
 from home, to witness the sad effects of mob violence. A distinctive 
 feature in the present crusade against Catholics in this country, is 
 precisely the invoking against them of this ruthless spirit. Five or six 
 of our churches either burnt, or sacked, or blown up by gunpowder,— 
 most of them while our citizens were engaged in the joyous celebration 
 of the liberty-hallowed Fourth of July; — street brawlers, generally 
 
 1 For mote on this subject, we refer to the Chapter om Mobs, in this Volume, p. 619, se(jq., auj 
 to the Article on the Philadelphia Riots, p. 596, seqq. 
 
I N T R 0 D U C T OJR Y ADDRESS. 
 
 XXI 
 
 men of the lowest and most infamous character, hired to vilify and 
 slander us and all that we hold most dear and sacred in the public streets 
 and highways, thereby openly exciting the passions of the ignorant to 
 bloody civil feuds; our people, after having been thus grievously wronged 
 in tiieir character as citizens and as religionists, butchered in brutal street 
 encounters, or assassinated in detail,* and then almost invariably placed 
 in the wrong by a mendacious press and telegraph, in the interest of 
 their enemies; and the victims of all these cruel and accumulated wrono-s 
 
 o 
 
 generally receiving, instead of sympathy, but additional obloquy and 
 persecution, they being in almost every instance the only ones arrested 
 and punished for the riots which others had caused, while the murderers 
 and assassins and church burners escape:—these are some of the 
 practical w^orldngs of that truculent spirit, which, during the present 
 year, has been aroused against us in t\\\sfree country ! 
 
 Eveiy one knows how a Catholic priest — the Rev. Mr. Bapst — was 
 lately treated^by a savage mob at Ellsworth in Maine. He was universally 
 conceded to be a man of great zeal and benevolence, as well as of irreproach¬ 
 able life. The only crime alleged against him, was that he had dared 
 express an opinion on the Common School System, different from that of 
 the majority. For this, in pursuance of a resolution passed at a town 
 meeting, he was tarred and feathered, ridden on a rail, and treated with 
 indignities, which forcibly remind us of the scenes on Calvary ; indignities 
 cf which savages should have been ashamed. The ruffians, amidst these 
 horrible outrages to God’s minister, did not, however, forget to rifle his 
 pockets and to appropriate to themselves his watch and money ! ^ Says 
 the Bangor Journal — a secular print of the vicinity : 
 
 “ While the tarring and feathering was going on, he was mocked and 
 reviled with horrid blasphernies and indecencies. He was asked why he 
 came over to this country. To preach the Catholic doctrine, he replied. 
 We are Protestants, the ruffians said, and will teach you better than that. 
 One, mocking him, said scornfully : “ So they persecuted Jesus of old.” 
 Another, reviling, asked “Will the Virgin Mary save you?” These 
 blasphemies remind one of the mockings on Calvary. Some asked him 
 . how many wives he had, how many children, &c. These are the most 
 decent of the insults, and are all that admit of publication.” 
 
 Do we live in the nineteenth century, or have we been transported 
 back to the period of civil commotions in the middle ages ; when modern 
 society was struggling into form, when feudal strife filled Europe with 
 bloody intestine feuds, and when Guelph and Ghibelline caused the 
 streets of Florence and Milan to run in blood ? Do we live in a land of 
 
 1 Witness the assassiuation of poor McCarthy at Newark ; and other murders mentioned in (ho 
 public prints. _ 2 Something more than fifty dollars 
 
XXll 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 liberty and law, or in one of tyranny and anarchy ? Has our nobis 
 constitution — the master work of human wisdom — become a dead 
 letter; or what is worse, have its just and equitable provisions, securing 
 equal civil and religious freedom to all, been openly contemried and 
 trampled under foot ? Have our people forgotten the price of liberty, 
 tliat they now hold it so cheap ? What will the friends of moiiaT'chy and 
 the enemies of republicanism in the old world think and say, as they 
 point in triumph to these sad commentaries, which we have written with 
 our own hands, on our boasted fundamental principle of equal law and 
 equal privileges to all ? What will the radical republicans of Europe, 
 with whom so many of our people profess to sympathize, answer, when 
 their opponents will appeal to such practical workings of liberty as the 
 above, in the great Model Republic across the Atlantic? Can any 
 reasonable man doubt, that the excesses to which we allude will have the 
 effect of greatly weakening, if not of wholly marring the cause of true 
 and rational liberty throughout the world ? 
 
 If history utters any warning, or teaches any lesson, it is this great 
 truth : that persecution has never yet put down a good cause, nor 
 materially served a bad one. Truth may be obscured or smothered for a 
 time ; it cannot be destroyed. Thus the sun may be darkened for a time 
 
 the interposing cloud, but anon his bright rays will break out again 
 to illumine the world ; no human power can wholly extinguish his light, 
 much less blot him out from the heavens. Yet the 'sun will share the 
 fate of all things created, and cease to exist; but the truth of God abideth 
 forever. For more than eighteen centuries the Catholic Church has 
 stood, a tower of strength, amidst the ruins of all things earthly, strewn 
 in her pathway. Dynasties have changed, thrones have fallen, and 
 
 sceptres have been broken around her; yet has she stood, and she stiT 
 stands, strono-er than ever : 
 
 “ She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the 
 ecclesiastical establishments, that now exist in the world ; and we feel no 
 assui'ance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. . . Four 
 times since the Church of Rome was established in western Christendom 
 has the human intellect risen up against her yoke. Twice she remained 
 completely victorious. Twice she came forth from tlie conflict bearing 
 the marks of cruel wounds, but with the principle of life still strong 
 within her. When we reflect upon the tremendous assaults which she 
 has survived, we find it difficult to conceive in what way she is to perish.”* 
 
 Nothing could, in fact, be more honorable to the Catholic Church than 
 the mode of warfare which has been lately adopted to effect her ruin in 
 this country. In appealing to passion and mob violence against her, her 
 
 1 Macaulay — Review of Ranke’s History of the Popes 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. xxiii 
 
 enemies virtually acknowledge that calm examination and sober rea¬ 
 soning are powerless for her destruction ; by the necessity under which 
 they find themselves to resort to misrepresentation and slander, they 
 ^ substantially concede that they would be worsted in the fair field of 
 truthful statement and dispassionate argument. Thus, those Protestants 
 who have been induced by prejudice and passion to favor this unhallowed 
 mode of attack upon our Church, have really abandoned the vantage- 
 ground in the controversy, and have thereby unwittingly yielded us the 
 victory. Bad temper, unfairness, and violence in a disputant, greatly 
 damage his cause, in the judgment of all calm and impartial men; 
 while the party assailed by such weapons is always sure to win sympathy, 
 and to gain on public opinion. 
 
 Another feature in the present violent warfare against us, is its glaring 
 inconsistency. The men who are most prominent in the qrusade are, in 
 general, as unprincipled as the means they employ are detestable.^ 
 Professing to be the champions of freedom, their secret and even avowed 
 object is to rob of freedom a large portion of their fellow citizens : — for 
 their “ war to the hilt against Romanism,” as explained by their words 
 and their actions, means nothing less than this. Professing to love the 
 Bible, and boasting a wish to see the principles of the Bible triumphantly 
 carried out in politics, they trample recklessly upon the most cherished 
 principles of the Bible. The Bible says: “Thou shaltlove thy neighbor 
 as thyself; ” they say, we must hate our neighbor, and declare war to 
 the hilt against him, if he happen to belong to the oldest and most 
 numerous body of Christians on the face of the earth. The Bible teaches, 
 that we must love our enemies ; they hate even their friends, or those at 
 least who have never wronged them in thought or deed. The Bible 
 inculcates the equitable principle, th^t we must do unto others, as we 
 would wish others to do unto us under like circumstances ; they teach 
 that Catholics are to be excluded from the operation of this Gospel rule. 
 The Bible teaches, that we are to be kind and indulgent to the poor 
 stranger who comes within our borders ; they teach that no treatment is 
 too hard for the stranger, if he dare think for himself in matters of religion, 
 and exercise his undoubted civil rights — clearly guaranteed to him by 
 the constitution in the country of his adoption. These specifications will 
 Suffice to show, how our boasted lovers and champions of the Bible,— who 
 are wont to parade the sacred volume in their riotous and bloody proces- 
 
 1 We Fpe«k here andthroughoui this Address chiefly of the leaders in rhe anti-Catholic warfare. 
 We are courinced that very many among those who have enrolled themselves in the new political 
 party are well meaning men, who have been misled by the arts cf others, or who are even persuaded 
 that they are doing God and their country service by proscribing Catholics! 
 
XXIV 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 Bions,’ — wantonly trample it under foot, whenever its declarations conflict 
 with their headlong passions. 
 
 Another glaring inconsistency in those who are foremost in the anti- 
 Catholic crusade, is found in the fact, that while they profess to advocate 
 a change of policy in regard to all foreigners who come to our shores, 
 they secretly, and sometimes even openly, fraternize with the blood¬ 
 stained Irish Orangemen and the truculent German infidels ! Their 
 boasted political principles are thus lost sight of, or openly violated, 
 whenever there is a good opportunity for waging a “ war to the hilt 
 against Romanism.^’ Every one is familiar with the late atrocious 
 attack on the Catholic Church at Newark by Irish Orangemen, and how 
 the press in tli^e interest of the Know Nothings, as usual, added slander 
 to outrage, by laying all the blame on the Irish Catholics. Well, 
 sacrilege was perpetrated in the open light of day; murder was done on 
 the person of an inoffensive man: yet up to the present day not one 
 among the foreign Protestant perpetrators of these horrid deeds has been 
 even arrested ! Still the truth came out, after the first storm of passion 
 had passed away ; and even the New York Tribune, re-echoing the 
 declaration of other papers, at length honorably proclaimed it as follows: 
 
 The Newark Murder and Sacrilege. — “That Church stands fairly 
 exculpated from all offense, and its devastation is an unprovoked and 
 shameful outrage, which reflects great discredit on Newark and belligerent 
 Protestantism. And it is worthy of note that while this is the fifth or 
 sixth Catholic edifice, which has been destroyed or devastated by mob 
 violence in our country, there is no instance on record wherein a Protestant 
 house of worship has been ravaged by CatholicsP 
 
 As if conscious of the dishonorable character of their warfare on Cath¬ 
 olics, the new anti-Catholic party enters the field shrouded in secresy and 
 wrapped up in mystery. Professing to be the champions of “ American 
 principles,” they skulk away into darkness, and seem ashamed to sliow 
 their faces in the light of day. If this be one of the “American 
 principles,” then are we done forever with American principles ! Born 
 and reared up in this free country, we have doated from our infancy on 
 the glorious principles embodied in our noble declaration of independence, 
 and in those cognate ones set forth in our matchless constitution. They 
 have been the dream of our youth, and the idol of our maturer years. 
 And we have had abundant opportunities to know, that those whom 
 choice, and not the mere accident of birth, have made citizens of our 
 happy country, have, without an exception known to us, entertained a 
 fond predilection for American principles, scarcely surpassed in intensity 
 
 1 As they did during the Philadelphia Riots. 2 New York Tribune, of September 8, 1854 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 XXV 
 
 oy our own. But we and they had thought, in our simplicity, that 
 manliness was one among those cherished “American principles” : that 
 it was even an essential part of the American character to be open, 
 candid, and stixight-forward in all its acts; that the American could 
 have no possible cause to be ashamed either of his name, of his political 
 doctrines, or of his acts ; that he needed no cover of darkness to conceal 
 either his purposes or his deeds. But we were mistaken ; our dream has 
 been dissipated ; and we awake to the painful reality, that neither we nor 
 our fathers knew anything about “ American principles,” until we were 
 happily taught them by foreign infidels, incendiaries, and assassins, 
 boasting the hallowed name of patriots and martyrs of liberty ! Yet 
 these were the very men against whose pernicious arts Washington had 
 so solemnly warned us, when he bade us beware of foreign influence ! 
 'I'he real dano'er to our renublican institutions lies in the encourag-ement 
 given to those mischievous men — the spawn of‘foreign revolutions — 
 whom failure in their attempts abroad causes to be cast upon our shores. 
 Received with open arms by our patriotic sympathy, they proceed 
 forthwith to organize amongst us those dangerous secret political societies, 
 which were the chief instruments of their warfare in Europe. Hear what 
 the venerable Josiah Quincy says of such societies : 
 
 “ The liberties of a people are never more certainly in the path of 
 destruction, than when they trust themselves to the guidance of secret 
 societies. Birds of the nig-ht are never birds of wisdom. One of them 
 indeed received this name, but it was from its looks, and not from its 
 moral and intellectual qualities. They ai-e for the most part birds of 
 prey. The fate of a republic is sealed when the Bats take the lead of the 
 Eagles.” 
 
 Every reader of American history knows how Washington saved the 
 country, by refusing to recognize Genet, the envoy of the bloody Fi-ench 
 republic ; whose arts and influence among the people had well nigh 
 brought ruin on our infant government. The calm judgment and wise 
 forecast of Washington prevented us from being led away by this most 
 dangerous “ foreign influence ; ” leading to precisely such “ entangling 
 alliances,” as the demagogue Kossuth, at a more recent period, sought, 
 happily in vain, to bring about. 
 
 But enough on this branch of the subject. We cannot bring ourselves 
 
 to believe, for a moment, that the narrow-minded, inconsistent, unscrip- 
 
 tural, un-American, and utterly detestable spirit, exhibited by those 
 
 among us who now take a leading part in the warfare against Catholics, is 
 
 at all likely to become the settled policy of our yet happy and prosperous 
 
 country. Should we, however, be wrong in this belief, and should tliat 
 0 
 
 fi. 
 
 '\ 
 
XXVI 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 truculent spirit prevail for a time over sounder and more -American 
 principles ; should the persecution of Catholics continue and increase 
 until our churches will all be in ruins, and there will remain no resting 
 place for our feet on the soil of this republic ; then are we convinced, 
 that amidst the ruins of our Church in this country will be strewn 
 likewise the ruins of the republic itself! The liberal and enlarged 
 principles of the latter will be annihilated ; its greatness will be arrested 
 and its glories dimmed; and while the stars of its flag may yet float in 
 the heavens, its E Pluribus Unum will be obliterated, and its many 
 colored stripes, emblematic of union in diversity — like its motto — will 
 be blotted out forever.* 
 
 Still we are unshaken in our hope of better things in the future. There 
 is, after all, a strongl v conservative spirit and a practical good sense in the 
 mass of our population, which needs only be fairly awakened, to frown 
 down all attempts at fastening on our necks the system of narrow-minded 
 and proscriptive policy of which we are speaking. To this practical sense 
 and “sober second thought’^ alone do we now address ourselves; all 
 reasoning with the unscrupulous faction which seeks to abridge or destroy 
 our liberties, were worse than useless. We will accordingly devote the 
 ^maining portion of this Address to answering some principal objections 
 made against us by our more reasonable opponents. Fully to refute them 
 all, would require a volume ; though the bulk of the charges might be 
 answered, by simply saying that we are misrepresented. We will confine 
 ourselves to those which affect our character as citizens and even here, 
 we must be brief, though we hope that what we shall be able to say will 
 be plain, straightforward, and to the purpose. Truth needs no gloss nor 
 drapery ; when presented in its simple and unadorned beauty, it best 
 attracts the admiration, and wins the homage of all its candid and 
 impartial votaries. 
 
 Almost all the accusations made against us are reducible to these two 
 heads ; first, that in religion we are intolerant and proscriptive ; second, 
 that in politics, we are enemies of republican institutions, and friends of 
 a foreign despotism. We will proceed summarily to answer these two 
 charges, together with some of the principal specifications alleged to 
 support them. But as we cannot be reasonably expected in this 
 Introductory Address to go into all the details necessary for the full 
 
 1 Or if not wholly ohliterated, at least severed from the unity of the Flag: the stars being for 
 the native oorn, and the stripes for the foreigner, escaping from tyranny to this noble asylum of 
 freedom ! This is the bea»itiful thought of \rchbiahop Hvighes 
 
 2 In the following Pages, .we answer many of the most current popular charges against the 
 Church ; particulaiiy in the Theological Essays, Part ii. p 397, seqq. 
 
 a 
 
 / 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 XXVll 
 
 elucidation of a subject so vast in the topics wliicli it mus:' necessarily 
 embrace, we sliall claim the privilege of referring, as we proceed, to the 
 Essays contained in this volume for such additional facts and illustrations 
 as they may supply, on the points which will successively come under 
 discussion. 
 
 I. In regard to the charge of exclusiveness and intolerance, two things, 
 which are often confounded, should be accurately distinguished : namely. 
 theological exclusiveness and civil intolerance. Our Protestant brethren 
 have, in general, very vague and loose ideas upon this subject. Among 
 them, the term religious liberality generally implies what might with more 
 propriety be called latitudinarianism. The fashionable theory, which 
 now obtains extensively among those outside of the Catholic Church, 
 holds that it matters not what a Christian believes, provided he try to be 
 a moral man and a good citizen ; in other words, that Christ either taught 
 no specific doctrines whatever, or that He required, as a condition of 
 salvation, belief in none which He did teach, or at most in but a few 
 fundamental articles. When those, who maintain the obligation of 
 belief in these fundamental principles only, are called upon to define 
 them, they are often embarrassed for an answer; some giving a wider, 
 some a more limited range to the points in question. All, however, 
 agree in advocating, to a greater or less extent, the latitudinarian pianciple 
 
 above indicated. ^ 
 
 Now we Catholics strongly protest against this popular theory, as 
 tendino- to unsettle all faith, and to subvert Christianity itself. We hold 
 
 that Christ delivered a definite system of religion ; that all the doctrines 
 
 » 
 
 which He taught are equally true, and equally to be believed ; tliat He 
 died on the cross to seal the truth of them all with His blood ; and that 
 consequently all the articles of faith which he established, in a manner so 
 solemn, must be believed by all who have the means of knowing them. 
 In other words, we hold that Christ, being the Son of God and Truth 
 itself, did establish, and in the very nature of things, could have estab¬ 
 lished, but ONE religion; and that, as He founded it for the salvation of 
 mankind. He must have required that it should be embraced, in all its 
 parts, by all who would be saved. This principle we regard as almost 
 self-evident; and we cannot see how it can be denied by any, who have 
 definite ideas on the nature and purpose of the Christian religion, or who 
 believe in the divinity of its Author and Founder. If the Christian 
 reli'don was not, after all, necessary to salvation, then why did the Son 
 of God undergo so much labor, and endure so much obloquy and 
 
XXVlll 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 sufFeriiig for its establishment ? Wliy did He say, speaking of all the 
 doctrines which He had taught without any distinction: “He that 
 believeth not, shall be condemned ? ” ‘ Why does His inspired apostle 
 Paul declare,in the name of his Master,— “ Without faith it is impossible 
 to please God ! ” " 
 
 But our present purpose does not require us to discuss this or any 
 other doctrinal point; we are merely stating our belief. What then do 
 we hold in reo-ard to those who are outside of the one true Church of 
 
 O 
 
 Christ ? Do we condemn them all alike and indiscriminately? We do not. 
 We leave them to their own responsibility before God, by whose unerring 
 judgment they will, like ourselves, stand or fall. If not united with the 
 Church, through their own fault ,— having the light and opportunity to 
 find out what it is, and neglecting to correspond therewith,— they are in ' 
 imminent danger of losing their immortal souls, for which Jesus died. 
 If they are separated from it, without any fault of theirs ,— should there 
 be any such,— they will not be condemned for this ; for God condemns 
 none but the guilty. Whether they are out of the true church with or 
 without their own fault, the great Searcher of hearts alone can decide; 
 and in His hands we leave them. 
 
 But the Catholic Church teaches farther, with Christ Himself, that we 
 must “ love our neighbor as ourselves ; ” that we must bear the burdens of 
 one another; that we must pray for and love even our enemies, and do good 
 to those who do evil to us ; that, when it is question of solacing misery or 
 succoring distress, we must not stop to inquire the belief of the sufferer: 
 in a word, that without charity towards all mankind, the profession of 
 Christianity wtre vain and profitless. The Catholic Church enjoins upon 
 her children to be just in all their dealings, to be good citizens, to be good 
 neighbors, to be good parents, good children, good husbands, good 
 wives ; — good in every relation of society; but especially, to be good 
 Christians, loving God above all things, and performing all their actions 
 for His honor and glory. 
 
 If these principles be intolerant, then must we plead guilty to the charge. 
 But if tliey be such as are essentially connected with Christianity itself, 
 such as alone are true and consistent with the whole tenor and the very 
 end and aim of the Christian religion ; then are we content to bear what¬ 
 ever of obloquy may attach to our belief in them. If, to be considered 
 charitable, we are called upon to sacrifice truth and common sense itself, 
 and to say that a hundred contradictory systems of belief may all be equally 
 
 1 St. iViarkxvi. 
 
 2 Ilebrews xi. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 true, then must we submit to the imputation of uncharitableness. In this 
 we do but imitate St. Paul, who sought not to please men, but rather to 
 be the servant of Christand we do but share in the ignominy of Christ 
 Himself, who, instead of flattering human error, died for the truth. 
 
 But does the Catholic Church “call down fire from heaven” on the 
 heads of those who dissent from her belief? By no means : hers has 
 been at all times a different spirit altogether, and one more consonant with 
 that of her divine Founder. Her mission has been to win sinners to 
 repentance, to inculcate mercy and love, not hatred and bitterness. The 
 first laws for the punishment of heretics were enacted by the early 
 Christian emperors, not by the Popes, the bishops, or the Church. The 
 latter deprecated all rigor against the sectaries, unless in particular cases, 
 where it seemed indispensable to restrain violence, or to redress open and 
 glaring outrages against religious liberty.^ The Catholic bishops and the 
 Popes were themselves often the victims of imperial claims to regulate the 
 affairs of the Church; and it is very doubtful whether they could have 
 prevented the enactment and execution of the laws in question. The Popes 
 were always opposed to violent measures for the propagation of the faith 
 among pagans ; and they were also in the habit of throwing the shield of 
 their protection around the Jews, whenever their religious privileges and 
 civil rights were infringed by intemperate Christian zeal.’ The Church 
 has thus always adopted and acted upon the maxim of Tertullian, who, 
 more than sixteen centuries ago, claimed religious liberty for Christians 
 as an indefeasable right, growing out of the very nature of religion itself: 
 “Religionis non est Religionem Cogere — It is not the part op 
 RELIGION TO ESTABLISH RELIGION BY FORCE.”'* Her Spirit of mildness was 
 breathed forth by the great St. Augustine, when, writing to Donatus, the 
 imperial Proconsul in Africa, he deprecated all undue severity against the 
 Arians and Donatists, and said : “ We desire them to be corrected, not 
 slain As one of her greatest Popes, St. Leo the Great, says : “ The 
 lenity of the Church being content with the priestly sentence, shrinks from 
 sanguinary vengeance ;”® and she sanctions or tolerates severe measures 
 emanating from the princes of the earth, only when, without them, society 
 
 1 “ Do I seek to please men ! If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”— Gaia* 
 tians i, 10. 
 
 2 See the evidence on this subject, presented in considerable detail by Archbishop Kenrick, in his 
 work on the I'rimacy; Tart ii. chap. viii. 
 
 3 For many facts sustaining this assertion, see “The Primacy,” ibid. 
 
 4 The whole passage of Tertullian, as translated by Archbishop Kenrick, is as follows: “ It is 
 man's right and privilege, that each one should worship what he thinks proper ; nor can the religion 
 cf another injure or profit him. Neither is it a part of religion to compel its adoption; since this 
 should be spontaneous, not forced, as even sacrifices are asked only of the cheerful giver.” Primacy, 
 
 ibid. 5 Epist. Donato. 6 Epist. ad Turribium. 
 
 C2 
 
XXX 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 itself would be endangered, *‘all regard for probity destroyed, all bonds 
 of society dissolved, and divine and human laws at once overturned.’V 
 Hence that celebrated and well known maxim, embodied as an axiom in 
 her Canon Law : “Ecclesia abhorret a Sanguine—Th.e Cfiurch abhors 
 BLOODSHED.” So far is this principle carried, that a standing rule of lier 
 discipline forbids the ordination, not only of those who have been guiliy 
 of shedding blood, but also of those who, whether as judges, accusers, or 
 voluntary witnesses, have co-operated towards passing a sentence of death 
 on a fellow man, or even one of bodily mutilation without taking life.^ 
 From the earliest period of her history, she has taught and acted upon 
 these principles. To furnish one out of a hundred examples of this, it is 
 well known that in the fourth century, St, Martin, the illustrious bishop 
 of Tours, openly censured two Spanish bishops — Ithacius and Idacius — 
 for teaching that the Priscillianists should be punished with corporal 
 chastisement or death for their wicked heresy, though this tended to the 
 subversion of social order itself; and the Church sustained him in his 
 truly Christian course.* 
 
 Persecution is not, and never has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. 
 Our standard writers have often boldly defied their adversaries to establish 
 the contrary proposition; but their challenge has never been fairly met. 
 Surely, if the Catholic Church had ever taught persecution, as a doctrine, 
 her enemies could tell us when and where she inculcated the offensive 
 tenet. If she ever persecuted, as a Church, they could certainly furnish 
 us with such facts and specifications on the subject, as would not be sus¬ 
 ceptible of either explanation or reply. The Catholic Church is no secret 
 society ; she has taught boldly, and acted out her teaching openly in the 
 arena of the world for more than eighteen centuries ; and if the charge of 
 persecution could be sustained against her, it would long since have been 
 done. The attempt has indeed been made, but it has utterly failed. Our 
 writers have scattered to the winds the arguments of their opponents on 
 this subject, and have shown that, in the majority of cases, the latter have 
 substituted vague declamation for facts, fiery appeals to passion for sober 
 argument. 
 
 But have not Catholics persecuted in times past ? We do not deny it; 
 but we answer, that they did so in virtue of no doctrine of their Church. 
 If the mere act of persecution proved the doctrine, then it would follow 
 that all the Protestant sects hold the same odious tenet; for all of them 
 
 1 Ibid. lie refers to the fatal errors of the ancient Manlcheans. 
 
 2 See our Canoni.^ts—pasairn, 
 
 3 The great St Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, united with St. Martin in this charitable interposition 
 In favor of the persecuted I’riscilliauiste 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 have been stained with persecution, atone period or other of their history. 
 
 « 
 
 They have all persecuted Catholics,^whenever and wherever they had the 
 power to do so; and almost all of them have likewise been guilty of the 
 glaring inconsistency of persecuting brother Protestants, for daring, in the 
 exercise of the conceded right of private judgment, to think differently 
 from themselves ! But who would infer from this undoubted fact, that 
 Protestants generally hold it as a doctrine^ that all who dissent from their 
 particular views should be put down by fire and sword ? Such a con¬ 
 clusion would be clearly illogical and grievously unjust. Now we claim 
 the application of the same equitable principle to the charge of persecu¬ 
 tion brought against our Church; and surely our claim is not unreasonable. 
 
 But the Catholic Church professes to be infallible and unchangeable, 
 whereas the Protestant sects admit that they are liable to err, and have 
 often erred in times past. We freely grant the latter proposition ; in regard 
 to the former, our adversaries lose sight of a very obvious distinction, 
 which truth demands should be made. The Catholic Church is unchange- 
 
 O 
 
 able in doctrine, but not in discipline. The latter may and does vary in 
 its details, according to times, places, and circumstances. So that, even 
 if our opponents should prove that our Church had, at any period of her 
 history, adopted persecution as a line of conduct under particular circum¬ 
 stances, or as a general discipline, they would not still make good their 
 position. But have they established even this proposition ? We believe 
 not; and to show how inconclusive are their arguments, on a point which 
 does not directly touch the real matter at issue, we will briefly refer to a 
 few of their specifications. 
 
 They allege, with an air of triumph, the third Canon of the fourth 
 Council of Lateran,* which excommunicated hefetics, and ordered that 
 they should be delivered up for punishment to the secular power. Our 
 answer is obvious. In the first place, it is manifest that no doctrine is 
 promulgated by this canon, but that only a rule of action is laid down 
 for a particular case. 2. We may observe, that Mathew Paris, a weighty 
 cotemporary historian, denies that this and the other canons were the 
 acts of the couijcil itself; ^ and that the English Protestant church 
 historian. Collier, declares his belief that the third canon in particular is 
 not genuine.^ 3. But, waiving this, and admitting the genuineness of 
 the canon, every reader of Church History knows that it was ^enacted 
 with the full concurrence, and probably on the positive demand, of the 
 
 1 Held A. D. 1215. 
 
 2 Math, Paris— ad annum 1216, apud Milner — Letters to a Prebendary. 
 
 8 Collier, Eoclesiastical History ; toI. i, p. 424 : quoted ibid. 
 
XXXll 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 temporal sovereigns of Christendom, who were nearly all of them present 
 at the council, either personally, or by their ambassadors.’ Some of the 
 provisions of the canon could not, in fact, have been enacted, much less, 
 carried into execution, but with the consent and co-operation of the 
 temporal sovereigns ; especially of those who were chiefly concerned. It 
 may here be remarked, in general, that many of the councils held during 
 the middle ages were not exclusively ecclesiastical conventions, but 
 rather congresses of all Christendom, representing the temporal as well 
 as the spiritual power.^ 4. The severe provisions of this canon were 
 directed asfainst the Albigenses, who then infested the south of France, 
 than whom a more pestilent sect probably never existed. They were the 
 sworn foes of all religion, of all decency, and of all social order. Wherever 
 they appeared, desolation and ruin followed in their pathway.^ They 
 were the Jacobins and Sans-culottes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries ; 
 and they were, if possible, even more truculent and bloody than the 
 Jacobins themselves. They were the enemies of both God and man. 
 Worse than our modern Mormons, they condemned marriage altogether, 
 and gave a free rein to every brutal passion and appetite. Had they 
 succeeded in establishing their principles, all order and all civilization 
 would have been at an end. Is it any wonder then, that all Christendom — 
 the State no less than the Church — rose up in mass to put down, even by 
 force, a sect so monstrous ? Is it not plain also, that, such being the 
 facts, the severe measures sanctioned by the council constitute an 
 exceptional case, which should not be alleged as evidence of a general 
 rule ? And for the truth of this picture, we appeal with confidence to 
 all cotemporary history. We may safely apply to them what the learned 
 Protestant church histonan Mosheim candidly says of a cognate sect — 
 the Brethren of the Free Spirit: 
 
 “ Certain writers, who have accustomed themselves to entertain a high 
 idea of .the sanctity of all those who, in the middle ages, separated 
 themselves from the Church of Rome, suspect the inquisitors of having 
 falsely attributed impious doctrines to the Brethren of the Free Spirit. 
 
 1 There were thus present at this council the emperors of Germany and Constantinople, the kings 
 of France, England, Aragon, Sicily, Hungary, Jerusalem, and Cyprus; - besides several minor 
 sovereigns. 
 
 2 As during the period in question, society was struggling into form, and there were no standing 
 armies to repel strongly organized and wide-spread aggressions upon social order, expedirions of a 
 general character for the defense of society were decided on in councils of the European sovereigns, 
 and when the enemies of order were likewise the foes of religion, these expeditions were c;dled crusades. 
 
 3 For fifcts and details on this subject, we beg to refer to “ The Primacy,” by Archhbishop Kenrick, 
 sup. cit. 
 
 4 During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a great part of Europe was infested with pernicious 
 sects, which revived under different forms the anti-social errors of the ancient Maincheans. They 
 were all alike, though they bore the different names of Turlupins, Begards, Brethren of the Free 
 Spirit, and Albigenses. The Petro-Brusians were a kindred sect. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 xxxni 
 
 But this suspicion is entirely groundless, (fee. . . . Tlieir shocking 
 violation of decency was a consequence of their pernicious system. 
 They looked upon decency and modesty as marks ‘of inward corruption. 
 
 . . . Certain entluisiasts amongst them maintained, that the be.iever could 
 not sin, let his conduct be ever so horrible or atrocious.” ‘ 
 
 But what have we to say on the Inquisition, especially the Spanish 
 Inquisition ; which, with the alleged sanction of the Church, filled 
 Christendom with so many horrors for ages ? What expljination are we 
 to give of what occurred at the Council of Constance, which, contrary to 
 plighted faith, consigned John Hussand Jerome of Prague to the flames ? 
 Satisfactory answers on both these points could be easily given ; and they 
 have been given a hundred times already. But as we devote special 
 Essays to these subjects in the following pages, ^ we must refer the candid 
 reader to them for details ; and we do so with entire confidence, that 
 all who will take the trouble to read these papers, will rise from the perusal 
 with the conviction, that even those darker passages in the Church’s 
 history do not make out the case of persecution against her, even as a 
 point of discipline.^ 
 
 Come we now to'^times nearer our own day. What are the statistics 
 of persecution during the last three centuries, since the dawn of what has. 
 been called by its friends the reformation ? And how stands the case at 
 present in Europe, and in America f No candid man who has read 
 history aright will deny, that during this period, and especially at present, 
 we have been, and are now, much more sinned against than sinning in the 
 matter of persecution. Catholics who speak the English langu^e, in 
 particular, have been for three hundred years, almost without intermission, 
 the victims of the most ruthless intolerance. Robbed of their church and' 
 often of their personal property; slandered in their reputation; hunted' 
 down by the myrmidons of a persecuting government; branded as 
 traitors and outlaws in their own country and that of their fathers before 
 them : such has been their treatment in Protestant England up to a 
 comparatively recent period ; ever since the fatal day when the tyrant 
 Henry VIII.— the Nero of modern times — quarreled with the Pope, and 
 violently severed the unity of the Church, because she could, not and' 
 would not sancition his headlong passions, to the injury of a virtuous- 
 wife ! ^ In Ireland, the fate of the Catholics was still harder, and of 
 lonsjer continuance."* 
 
 o 
 
 1 Eccles. History, vol. iii. p. 284 ; Maclain’s translation —quoted by Milner. 
 
 2 See the Articles on the Spanish Inquisition, and on John IIuss and the Hussites ; pp. 213,191 seqq , 
 
 o See the third Article oti Church History p. 57 seqq, for farther details on the reformation in Mngland 
 
 4 In the Article on Ireland and the Irish — p. 606 seqq., we haTesketchedthesufferings of Catholic- 
 
 Ireland under English persecution. 
 
XXXIV 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 We go even farther, and state, as a fact which no one will deny, who 
 retains the least regard for historic truth, that in every country in Europe 
 where the rt formation succeeded, Catholics were invariably persecuted, 
 almost as atrociouslv and for nearlv as lonor a time, as in EnMand and 
 Ireland. Robbery, sacrilege, slander, civil commotions and bloodshed, 
 were everywhere the arms with which incipient Protestantism assailed 
 those, whose only crime was their honest wish to adhere to the faith, and 
 worship at the altars of their forefathers, and of the forefathers of those 
 very men too who were engaged in persecuting them ! Perhaps in 
 Switzerland, an old Catholic republic with some remains of the ancient 
 Catholic freedom, the persecuting spirit was less rampant than elsewhere ; 
 but even in Switzerland, with its o-lowinof Catholic memories of William 
 Tell, Furst, and Melchtal, we find no exception to the remark just made. 
 Even there the fiercely intolerant spirit of the early reformers was not 
 softened. This we establish, by abundant evidence, in a special Essay 
 on the Reformation in Switzerland.' 
 
 We conclude this branch of the subject with an extract from the Edin¬ 
 burg Review —-an unexceptionable Protestant authority — which candidly 
 places in its true light the character of the self-styled reformers, in the 
 matter of persecution : ’ 
 
 Protestant writers, in general, are apt to describe the reformation as 
 a struggle for religious freedom. . . . Now, we humbly apprehend, that 
 the free exercise of private judgment was most heartily abhorred by the 
 first reformers, except only where the persons who assumed it had the 
 
 good fortune to be exactly of their opinion.The martyrdoms of 
 
 Servetus, in Geneva, and of Joan Bocher, in England, are notable 
 instances of the religious freedom which prevailed in the pure and 
 primitive state of the Protestant churches. It is obvious, also, that the 
 freedom for which our first reformers so strenuously contended, did not, 
 by any means, include a freedom to think as the Catholics thought; that 
 is to say, to think as all Europe had thought for many ages, and as the 
 greatest part of Europe thought at the very time and continue to think to 
 this very day. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, not 
 merely as a public establishment, hut as a tolerated sect, was the avowed 
 object of our first reformers. In 1560, by an act of the parliament, which 
 established the reformation in Scotland, both the sayers and hearers of 
 Mass, whether in public or in private, were, for the first oftense, to sutler 
 confiscation of all their goods, together with corporal punishment, at the 
 discretion of the magistrate ; they were to be punished by banishment for 
 the second offense ; and by death for the third! . . . . It was not possible 
 for the most bigoted Catholic to inculcate more distinctly the complete 
 extirpation of the opinions and worship of the .Protestants, than John 
 Knox inculcated as a most sacred duty, incumbent on the civil govern¬ 
 ment in the,first instance, and if the civil government is remiss, incumbent 
 
 1 Page 234, seqq. 
 
 •'2 For the intolerant character of the early English reforme-s, see Article III, on Church llistort 
 
 .57 seqq. where W9 give Macaulay’s portrait of Oranmer. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 on the people, to extirpate completely the opinions and worship of the 
 Catholics, and even to massacre the Catholics, man, woman, and child. 
 .... If the government had followed the directions of the clergy, the 
 Catholics would have been extirpated by the sword. ... In the reigns 
 of Charles the Second, and of his brother, aProtesUint prelacy, in alliance 
 with a Protestant administration, outstript the wishes of those arbitrary 
 monarchs in the persecution of their Protestant countrymen. It is 
 needless to weary ourselves or our readers with disgusting deUiils, which 
 the curious in martyrology may find in various publications. Everybody 
 knows that the martyrdoms were both numerous and cruel but perhaps 
 the comparative mildness of the Catholic Church'•of Scotland, is not so 
 generally known. Knox has investigated the matter witii commendable 
 diligence, but has not been able to muster more than eighteen martyrs 
 who perished by the hand of the executioner, from the year 1500, when 
 here.sy first began, till 1559, when the Catholics had no longer the power 
 to persecute. ... It is, indeed, a horrid list ; but far short of the 
 numbers, who, during the twenty-two years immediately previous to the 
 Revolution, were capitally executed in Scotland for the ^ wicked error ^ of 
 separation from the worship of the Protesfiint Episcopal Church.” * 
 
 ■ While we heartily unite with every lover of freedom in condemning 
 all acts of persecution for conscience sake, or for religious opinions 
 not subversive of morality or the public safety, candor will compel 
 even our adversaries to acknowledge, that in the persecution of Catholics 
 by Protestants, there were aggravating circumstances, which were not 
 found in the persecution of the latter by the former. Protestant persecu* 
 tion was purely aggressive; Catholic persecution was mainly defensive: 
 the former sought to rob Catholics of all they held most dear} the latter 
 was directed chiefly towards maintaining the most undoubted and most 
 sacred rights. Catholics were in possession; Protestants aimed at violently 
 ousting them from their firesides and their altars, and taking their place. 
 Catholics sought to preserve the ancient faith and worship, hallowed and 
 rendered dear by a thousand glorious memories; Protestants sought to 
 substitute for it, frequently by violence, new doctrines and new forms, 
 about which they were not themselves agreed, and which they claimed 
 the right of changing as often as they might judge proper. 
 
 Waiving all this, however, let us strike evenly the balance of persecu¬ 
 tion in the past; burying whatever is unpleasant in generous oblivion, and 
 forgiving as we liope to be forgiven. Now, how stands the account of 
 religious persecution at the present day ? Is all the intolerance on the 
 side of Catholics ? Or have not Protestants at least their own full share 
 of the guilt, which they are so free to chai'ge exclusively on others ? Let 
 us see. 
 
 The impartial comparison between Catholic and Protestant countries, on 
 
 1 Bdlnbargh lleyiew, Article VIII., entitled “ Toleration of the Reformers,” No. 53. 
 
^\'XV1 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 the subject of persecution in late years, exhibits a fearful balance against 
 the latter. It may be stated without exaggeration, that there is scarcely 
 a Protestant country on the face of the earth, which does not even at this 
 enlightened day, persecute Catholics, in one form or another, or which has 
 not persecuted them during the present century ; while there is, on the con¬ 
 trary, scarcely a Catholic nation in the world, which does persecute, or 
 has recently persecuted Protestants. Strange as this may sound in the 
 ears of those who have been misled into the persuasion, that the Catholic 
 is essentially a persecuting Church, and that we owe religious freedom 
 entirely to Protestantism, it is nevertheless true. Here are the facts ; and 
 first oil the Catholic side. 
 
 France is Catholic, and France not only grants the fullest liberty of 
 worship to her small number of Protestant citizens, but she even pays 
 their ministers out of the public treasury. Austria is Catholic ; and 
 Austria, despotic though she be usually represented, concedes a full 
 measure of religious liberty to the Protestant minority, allowing them even 
 to have their own separate schools, supported, like those of the Catholic 
 majority, from the common fund.* Bavaria is Catholic, and Bavaria also 
 ‘allows equal civil and religious privileges to her Protestant subjects. 
 Beloium is Catholic, and Beluium has a fundamental law, o'rantin(>- unre- 
 stricted and equal religious freedom to all. Italy, Spain, and Poitugal, 
 •with perhaps some of the colonies of the two last, may be thought to form 
 exceptions to this general rule ; but though their policy be somewhat 
 proscriptive on the score of religion, we read of no acts of persecution, 
 worthy the name, having been recently perpetrated therein. In the first 
 place, they evidently could not have been guilty of persecuting their 
 Protestant citizens, for the very simple reason that they have no Protestant 
 citizens. If they are jealous, especially of English Protestants, who 
 sometimes pass tanjugh those countries, distributing tracts and Bibles, it 
 has generally happened, because England has rendered herself justly odious 
 on the continent of Europe by her constant political intrigues among her 
 neighbors, often carried on under the guise of religious zeal; and because 
 her tract distributers are suspected, frequently with too much reason, of 
 being political propagandists, and secret agents paid for their services. 
 
 The intrigues of Lord Minto in Italy, and those of Bulwer and others 
 in Spain, are too well known to require proof. One of the principal means 
 employed by the hired agents of these men for strengthening English 
 influence, was the distribution of Bibles and tracts, and the accompanying 
 
 1 The authority fur this statement will be given a little farther on. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 XXX Vli 
 
 efi'orts to make proselytes among the Catholic inhabitants. The intrigue, 
 however, was unsuccessful; Bulwer was compelled to leave Spain, and 
 Minto is now detested in Italy as never was man detested before. The 
 affair of the Madiai, about which so great an outcry was lately made, may 
 be easily explained in this way. Their imprisonment was the result ot 
 their active attempts at proselytism, as paid emissaries of England ; not 
 of their wish to profess and practise religious principles opposed to those 
 of the Catholic majority. It is a notorious fact, that in both Italy and 
 Spain, Protestant travelers or temporary residents are never molested on 
 account of peculiarities in their religious creed or worship; provided they, 
 on their side, do not interfere with the faith and worship of the Catholic 
 population. The Anglican church and our American Protestants have 
 places of worship at Rome itself, under the eyes and with the permission 
 of the Pope; who not only allows them to assemble therein for religious 
 purposes as often as they wish, but protects them in the enjoyment of 
 their religious freedom. Protestants have similar religious privileges in 
 Tuscany, and elsewhere in Italy, At Rome, at Florence, at Leghorn, 
 and in other places, they have also their separate cemeteries. If this latter 
 privilege has not as yet been granted to Protestant strangers sojourning in 
 Spain, we have little doubt that it will soon be conceded; whenever, in 
 fact, it will be demanded in a proper manner, by a sufficient number of 
 Protestants to render a separate burial place an object of importance or 
 necessity. The only complaint which the very few non-Catholics passing 
 through, or residing for a time in Spain, can now make on this subject is, 
 that in case of death they are not buried in ground expressly set apart and 
 blessed for Catholic interment, or with the solemnities which usually 
 accompany the Catholic funeral; — privileges which they would scarcely 
 covet, even in this free country. Those who make so much noise about 
 Spanish intolerance in the matter of Protestant funerals, wholly lose sight 
 of, or purposely conceal the fact, that in Protestant Eng’land — wiiere there 
 are a thousand resident Catliolic citizens for every Protestant stranger in 
 Spain—Catholics are not allowed to be buried, with any pomp or cere¬ 
 monial, in the public cemeteries ; though these are, in many instances, 
 old Catholic burial grounds, wrested by violence from their original 
 Catholic purpose by the English Protestant government! The Catholics 
 of England have thus much more reason to complain on this subject, than 
 have the very few Protestants who may happen to be for a time in Spain, 
 Let us now take a rapid glance at the Protestant nations of Europe. 
 
 In all of them, without an exception known to us, there is an established 
 D 
 
xxxvm 
 
 •INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 religion, with a union of Church and State. In the freest amongst them 
 all — England — Catholics are barely tolerated; they are con tinually loaded 
 with obloquy and abuse, and are frequently made the victims of petty 
 legal enactments. Witness the Ecclesiastical Titles’Bill; the late savage 
 outbreak of indignation at the re-establishment of the Catholic hierarchy; 
 the bitter prosecution of Dr. Newman ; and the monster grievance of all 
 — the bloated church establishment — fattened on the sweat and blood of 
 the crushed and down-trodden masses of the people. Protestant Holland 
 recently persecuted her Catholic subjects to such an extent, as to drive 
 them into a rebellion, the result of which was the independence of Catholic 
 Belgium. Protestant Prussia lately imprisoned the venerable Archbishop 
 of Cologne, to compel him to sacrifice his conscientious convictions ; and 
 Protestant Baden is now actively engaged in a similar disgraceful perse¬ 
 cution of tlie venerable Archbishop Vicari, of Freyburg, and of liis clergy, 
 for the same unhallowed motive. But the Archbisliop of Freyburg is 
 destined to triumph over the intolerant Protestant government of the 
 Grand Duke, as he of Cologne triumphed over the persecuting Prussian 
 monarch.' In Protestant Sweden, he who dares become a Catholic is 
 banished the country, and his property is confiscated to' the state ; and we 
 believe a similar law exists in Protestant Denmark. In Sweden, but a 
 few years ago, the distinguished painter Nilsen suffered the full penalty 
 of this iniquitous law; and more recently still several ladies, distinguished 
 for their piety, have had the same severe sentence passed on them. Heart¬ 
 less must be the persecutor, who does not spare even the weakness of 
 woman ! Finally, every one knows bow fiercely the Swiss Protestants 
 raged against the Catholics, when the latter were overpowered by superior 
 numbers in the late civil war, brought about itself by the most reckless 
 Protestant intolerance; how the holy Bishop of Lausanne and Geneva was 
 banished from his country ; how the Jesuits were expelled, and- the poor 
 defenseless nuns were driven from their convents; how church property 
 was confiscated, including even that of the benevolent monks of Mount 
 St. Bernard, who had saved so many valuable Protestant lives amidst the 
 snows of the Alps ; and how an iron yoke was there placed on the necks 
 of the down-trodden Catholic minority. 
 
 If there be a Protestant country in the world, which has not even 
 lecently persecuted Catholics, we have not yet learned its name ; and it 
 ill becomes our opponents to charge a/l the persecution on the Catholic 
 
 1 What aggravates the liardship of the persecution in regard to botli these distinguished Catholic 
 prelates, is the circumstance, that both were octogenarians of irreproachable character, whoso age 
 and virtues should have protected them from such outrages. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 Church. A persistence in preferring such an accusation, against ah 
 evidence, reminds us of the fable concerning the wolf and the lamb. It 
 was the lamb who always muddled the stream ! No one can contravene 
 these facts , and if they be unpleasant, we have at least the consolation 
 to think that we had no agency in making them/ad^/ and that we allege 
 them at present only in self-vindication. 
 
 Even in our own country, though it boasts so loudly of its freedom, 
 how often have Catholics been made the victims of reliofious intolerance ! 
 Every one knows the fierce spirit which is now invoked against them; 
 every one remembers the smouldering ruins of the Ursuline Convent on 
 Mount Benedict, and those of the Philadelphia Churches burned by a 
 savage mob ; and all are acquainted with those more recent outrages 
 against our religious liberties to which we have already alluded. We 
 may add, that in some of our hospitals, alms-houses, and other public 
 institutions, supported by the money of all. Catholics are often denied 
 the services of their clergymen and the consolations of religion, even at 
 their dying hour ! ‘ 
 
 On the contrary, have Catholics ever persecuted, or have they ever 
 shown even the slightest disposition to persecute, their dissenting brethren 
 in this country ? If they have, we desire to know when and where they 
 made the attempt. One thing is certain, — and no one can deny it, or rob 
 them of tliis glory ; — they were the first who reared on tliis broad 
 eontinent, in their own noble colony of Maryland, the glorious banner 
 of civil and religious liberty. All must award them this praise; which 
 they deserve the more, because, at that very time, the Puritans of New 
 England, and the Episcopalians of Virginia were busily engaged in 
 persecuting their brother Protestants for conscience sake ; ^ and the 
 former were moreover enacting proscriptive blue laws, and hanging 
 witches ! * 
 
 II. Come we now to the other charge against Catholics;—that they 
 cannot, consistently with their principles, be good citizens of a republican 
 government. Catholics cannot consistently be republicans ! And pray, 
 who originated all the free principles which lie at the basis of our own 
 noble constitution ? Who gave us trial by jury, habeas corpus, stationary 
 courts, and the principle,— for which we fought and conquered in our 
 revolutionary struggle against Proteskint England,— that taxes are not tc 
 be levied without the free consent of those who pay them ? Are w'e 
 
 1 Cases of this petty persecution have occurred in Cincinnati, nnJ in other places, particularly ia^ 
 the Eastern and Northern States. 2 See Bancroft’s History— Maryland 
 
 3 For full details on this subject, read the Essays on Our Colonial Blue Laws, P. 333, seqq. 
 
xl IJTTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 indebted to Protestantism for even one of these cardinal elements of free 
 government ? No; not for one. They all date back to the good old 
 Catholic times, in the middle ages — some three hundred years before 
 the dawn of the reformation ! Our Catholic forefathers gave tliem all to 
 us ; not one of them do we owe to Protestants. 
 
 Again, we are indebted to Catholics for all tlie republics which evei 
 existed in Christian times, down to the year 1776 ; for those of Switzer¬ 
 land, Venice, Genoa, Andorra, San Marino, and a host of minor free 
 commonwealths, which sprang up in the “dark” ages. Some of these 
 republics lingered until a comparatively recent date ; some still exist, 
 proud monuments and unanswerable evidences of Catholic devotion to 
 freedom. These facts no one can deny ; they stand out too boldly on the 
 historic record. They are acknowledged by Protestants, no less than by 
 Catholics. We subjoin the testimony of an able writer in the New York 
 Tribune, believed to be Bayard Taylor, who is connected with the 
 management of that journal. This distinguished traveler — a staunch 
 Protestant — appeals to history, and speaks from personal observation. 
 He writes : 
 
 “ Truth compels us to add that the oldest republic now existing is that 
 of San Marino, not only Catholic but wholly surrounded by the especial 
 dominion of the Popes, who might have crushed it like an egg-shell at 
 anv time these last thousand vears — but thev didn’t. Tlieonlv republic 
 we ever traveled in besides our own is Switzerland, half of its cantons or 
 states entirely Catholic, yet never tliat we have heard of unfaithful (o the 
 cause of freedom. They vvere nearly all Roman Catholics, from- the 
 southern cantons of Switzerland, whom Austria so ruthlessly expelled 
 from Lombardy after the suppression of the last revolt iu Milan, ac¬ 
 counting them natural born republicans and revolutionists ; and we 
 suppose Austria is not a Know-Nothing on this point. We never heard 
 the Catholics of Hungary accused of backwardness in the late glorious 
 struggle of their country for freedom, though its leaders were Protestants, 
 fighting against a leading Catholic power avowedly in favor of religious 
 ;as well as civil liberty. And chivalric;, unhappy Pidand, almost wholly 
 Catholic, has made as gallant struggles for freedom as any other nation, 
 while of the three despotisms that crushed her but one was Catholic. 
 But enough. We do not hope to stop the crusade of intolerance and 
 violence now setting against the Catholics, calling for their disfranchise- 
 ment, and thi'eatening their temporary exclusion from all public trusts. 
 Epidemics of this sort must have their course ; and this one has some 
 truth and a large amount of honest bigotry on which to base its operations. 
 Quite a number, whose religion never till now did them much good or 
 liarm, will ride into office on the back of their resonant Protestantism, 
 and that will be the end of the matter.” 
 
 The reformation dawned on the world in the year 1517. What did U 
 do for the cause of human freeilom from that date, down to 1776 — when 
 our owv. tepublic arose? Did it strike one blow for liberty during these 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 xll 
 
 two centuries and a half? Did it originate one republican principle, or 
 found one solitary republic ? Not one. In Germany, where it had full 
 sway, it ruthlessly trampled in the dust all the noble franchises of the 
 Catholic middle ages; it established political despotism every where ; it 
 united church and state ; in a word it brought about that very state of 
 thi ngs which continues to exist, with but slight amelioration, even down 
 to the present day. In England, it did the same ; it broke down the 
 bulwarks of the British constitution, derived from the Catholic Mao-na 
 
 O 
 
 Charta; it set at naught popular rights, and gave to the king or queen 
 unlimited power in church and state ; and it required a bloody struggle 
 
 and a revolution, one hundred and fifty years afterwards, to restore to 
 
 0 
 
 something of their former integrity the old chartered rights of the British 
 1 
 
 Thus Protestantism has boasted much, but it has really done little for 
 the cause of human freedom. But are we not at least indebted to it for 
 our own revolution, and for the liberties which it has secured for us? We 
 cheerfully award to our Protestant fellow-citizens the praise, which is so 
 justly due them, for their share in the glorious struggle; but they should 
 also, in common justice, allow to Catholics the credit of having zealously 
 co-operated with them, to the full extent of their means, in bringing about 
 a result so glorious and so beneficial. He who was the most wealthy 
 among the signers of our Declaration of Independence, and who conse¬ 
 quently periled most in putting his name to that instrument, was the 
 Catholic Charles Carroll, of Carrolton; whom Providence permitted 
 to survive all his fellow-patriots, as if to rebuke the fierce and anti-repub¬ 
 lican spirit of intolerance, which was so soon to be evoked from the 
 abyss against his brethren in religion. Catholic soldiers fought side by 
 side with their Protestant brethren in the patriotic struggle; and when our 
 energies were exhausted, and the stoutest hearts entertained the most 
 gloomy forebodings as to the final issue. Catholic France stepped gallantly 
 forth to the rescue of our infant freedom, almost crushed by an over¬ 
 whelming English Protestant tyranny ! ^ Many of our most sagacious 
 statesmen have believed, that, but for this timely aid, our Declaration of 
 Independence could scarcely have been made good. 
 
 Our enemies point, with an air of triumph, to the principles of 
 Washington. We cheerfully accept the appeal. After the struggle was 
 over, and Washington was unanimously elected first President of the 
 
 1 For more on this subject, see the E.'Say on the Influence of Catholicity on Civil Liberty; Pago 
 131, seqq. 
 
 2 Catholic Spain also subsequently lent us her aid against England 
 
 1)2 
 
xlli 
 
 INTRODUCTORY AD*DRESS. 
 
 / 
 
 new republic, he received a congratulatory address from tlie Catholics of 
 the country, in which the following passage •is found : 
 
 “ This prospect of national prosperity is peculiarly pleasing to us on 
 another account, because whilst our country preserves her freedom and 
 independence, we shall have a well founded titl^ to claim from her justice 
 equal rights of citizenship, as the price of our blood spilt under your 
 eyes, and of our common exertions for her defense under your auspicious 
 conduct; rights rendered more dear to us by the rememberance of former 
 hardships.” ‘ 
 
 To this portion of the Address, the father of his country replied as 
 follows: 
 
 « 
 
 “ As mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow, that 
 all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community 
 are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever 
 to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and 
 liberality. And I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the 
 patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their revolution^ and 
 the establishment of their government; or, the important assistance they 
 received from a nation in which the Roman Qutholic faith is professed’* ’ 
 
 We ask no more than that to which Washington believed us justly 
 
 entitled,—-‘a fair share in the civil and religious liberties which our 
 
 \ 
 
 fathers aided to secure equally to all American citizens. We ask for no 
 exclusive privilege whatsoever ; we claim only our clear and undoubted 
 rifj-hts, in common with our fellow-citizens. 
 
 But are not Catholics the subjects of a foreign prince, the Pope? This 
 slander — like almost everything else said against us—has been refuted 
 so many thousand times already, that we are almost afraid to tire the 
 patience, or insult the understanding of our readers by answering it 
 again. No man of common intelligence or information need be told, at 
 this late day, that the obedience we owe to the Pope is confined entirely 
 to religion and to spiritual things ; and that he neither claims, nor we 
 allow, any jurisdiction over us in temporal matters affecting our civil 
 allegiance. This question has been so long settled throughout the civilized 
 world, that its revival at present appears to be wholly’ useless, if not 
 utterly absurd.^ When it was a question, more than sixty years ago, of 
 removing some of the cruel penal laws under w'hich the Catholics of 
 
 1 'I'he Address was signed by bishop <'arroll of baltiinore. on the part of the Catholic clergy, and 
 by Charles Carroll of Carrolton, Daniel Carroll, Thomas Firziiniuons, and Dominic l,yuch, on the part 
 tf the Catholic laity. See Biographical Sketch of the .Most llev. John Carroll, by John Carroll 
 Brent; p 146, 147. 
 
 2 Spark’s Life and Writings of Washington, Yol. xii 
 
 3 As esrly as the beginning of the seventeenth century, St. Franci.s de Sales deprecated the 
 discussion of this question on many accounts, and among other rea.sons, because he considered it 
 “useless, sijice the I’ojus, in fact, at that day asked nothing of kings and princes in this respect — 
 Z/ii/ti/e, pareequd le Pape, par le fait, no demando rieii aujourd’iiui aux roisetaux princes pour ce 
 regard.*’ Isjtter to a Lady. Vie du Saint, par lo Cure de St. Sulpice,— in 2 volumes. Vol. ii, p. 
 106: Paris 1854. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 xllii 
 
 .England had been so long suffering, this very question in regard to the 
 nature and extent of papal jurisdiction was discussed ; and it was then 
 settled to the entire satisfaction of Mr. Pitt and of the whole British 
 parliament, which accordingly passed the Catholic Relief Bill.* The 
 oatli of allegiance freely taken by Catholic bishops, and members of 
 parli ament, and officers of the government in Great Britain and Ireland, 
 with the sanction of the Popes themselves, expressly disclaims belief in 
 any civil power or jurisdiction over British subjects, as inherent in the 
 sovereiu'n Pontiffs. 
 
 To prevent all possibility of misunderstanding on this subject, and to 
 remove every pretext for calumny, the Popes authorized a change in the 
 oath taken by a Bishop at his cqnsecration, striking out ail obscure clauses 
 of feudal origin, and retaining those only which promised obedience in 
 spirituals. What more than this could be asked by any reasonable man, 
 for the final settlement of the question ? The Catholic bishops of the 
 United States, with the express sanction of Rome, take the oath, as 
 tlms modified; and they have more than once officially declared, both 
 individually and in their collective capacity, their solemn belief that the 
 Roman Pontiff has none but spiritual power and jurisdiction, outsijle of 
 his own immediate states. The first Catholic bishop of the country — 
 tlie venerable Carroll, of Biiltimore,^— wrote as follows on this subject, 
 in a Pastoral Letter issued February 22, 1797 :* 
 
 “ There would indeed a foundation for the reproach intended by the 
 words foreign jurisdiction^ if we acknowledged in the successor of St. 
 Peter any power or prerogative, which clashed in the least degree with 
 the duty we owe to our country or its laws. To our country we owe 
 allegiance and the tejider of our best services and property, when they 
 are necessary for its defense ; to the Vicar of Christ we owe obedience 
 in things purely spiritual. Happily, there is no competition in their 
 respective claims on us, nor any difficulty in rendering to botli the 
 submission which they have a right to claim. Our countrv commands, 
 
 1 Mr. I’itt made inquiries on this subject at the C<\tho!ic uiiiTe’'sities of the Sorbonne. Louvain, 
 Douay. Aicala, and Salamanca. Their answers were all distinct and unanimous, as follows: 
 
 I. That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Koine, haa 
 not, i.or have, any civil authority power, jurisdiccion, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm 
 of En.^iaiid. 
 
 II. Thar, the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, ermy individual of the Church of Home, cannot 
 absolve or dispense with his Majesty’s subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext 
 what.'ioever. 
 
 Ill 'That there is no princijile in the tenets of the Catho'ii faith, by which Catholics are justified in 
 not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any 
 trau>actions. eir.iier of a public or a private nature. 
 
 Si-e tile documents, at greater length, in butler’s Book of the Church, Appendix I, p. 287-8. 
 
 2 It may not be generally known, that Dr Franklin, when niinisteT to France, had several 
 conferences with the Xuncio Of the Pope on the subject of having a Catholic bishop appo'uted for 
 Americ.a; that he approved of the plan, in order that American Catholics mi)^ht not be dependent 
 on an English bishop ; and that he recommended for the post Dr.,Carroll, his fc'end and tomp.inioo 
 In the mi.'Sion to Canada. 
 
 3 Biographical Sketch, &c., sup. cit. P. 137-8. 
 
xliv 
 
 I,N T RO D U C T 0 R Y ADDRESS. 
 
 and enf(»rnes by outward coercion, the services whicli tend to the 
 preservation and defense of tliat personal security, and of that property, 
 for the sake of which political societies were formed, and men agreed to 
 live under the protecdi»n of, and in obedience to civil g'overnmenc. The 
 Vicar of Christ, as visible head of His Church, watches over the integrity 
 and soundness of doctrine, and makes use of means and weapons that act 
 only on tiie souls of men, to enforce the duties of religion, the purity of 
 worship, and eccJesiastical discipline.” 
 
 Our bishops, assembled in solemn council at Baltimore, have often pub¬ 
 licly proclaimed principles identical with those just announced, as emanating 
 from the venerable founder of our hierarchy. We can make room for but 
 two extracts, the first of which is taken from a Pastoral Letter issued by 
 them in the sixth provincial council of Baltimore, held in May, 1846; from 
 which it will be seen that our bishops, ,in their collective and official 
 capacity, are very plain and explicit in their declarations on this very point: 
 
 “ The pateiMial authority of the chief Bishop is constantly misrepresented 
 and a‘=:sailed by the adversaries of our holy religion, especially in this 
 country, and is viewed with suspicion even by some who acknowledge its 
 powerful inliuence in preserving faith and unity. It is unnecessary for us 
 to tell you, brethren, thattlie kingdom of Christ, of which the Bishop of 
 Rome, as successor of Peter, has received the keys, is not of this world; 
 and that the obedience due to the Vicar of the Saviour is in no way incon¬ 
 sistent with your civil allegiance, your social duties as citizens, or your 
 rights as men. We can confidently appeal to the whole tenor of our instruc¬ 
 tions, not only in our public addresses, but in our most confidential 
 communications, and you can bear witness that we have always taught 
 YOU to render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, to God the things 
 which are God’s. Be not, then, heedful of the misrepresentations of 
 foolish men, who, unable to combat the evidences of our faith, seek to 
 excite unjust prejudice against that authority which has always proved its 
 firmest support. Continue to practise justice and charity towards all your 
 fellow-citizens— respect the magistrates—observe the laws — shun tumult 
 and disorder, as free, and not as having liberty as a cloak for malice, but 
 as the servants of God. You, brethren, have been called unto liberty : 
 only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit, 
 serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word : Tliou siialt 
 love thy neighbor as thyself. Thus you will put to shame the calumnia¬ 
 tors of our holy faith, and vindicate it more effectually, than by any abstract 
 profession or disclaimer.” 
 
 But there is another declaration, made by the bishops who composed 
 the fifth council of Baltimoi-e, held in May, 1843, which has even more 
 weight in settling this question ; because it occurs in an official Letter 
 addressed to the Pope by the assembled American prelates. The 
 Poniift’, far from being offended at so explicit a disavowal by the 
 American bishops of all papal authority and jurisdiction in merely civil 
 matteis, says in his official answer: “Your letter'was most pleasing to 
 us ; ” ' and he praises the zeal of our prelates. Here is the extract 
 
 1 Gratissimae Nobia fuere Vestrae Literae. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 xly 
 
 illuded to ; — the bishops are speaking of tlie efforts made by our enemies 
 fcO put down the Church in this country : 
 
 “ They spread doubtful rumors against us among the people ; with 
 untiring efforts, they circulate among the ignorant and uninformed books, 
 which calumniate our most holy religion ; they leave no means untried 
 to infect with their errors their Catholic servants ; and . . . although our 
 forefathers poured out their blood like water for the defense of our 
 liberties against a Protestant oppressor, they yet seek to render us, their 
 fellow citizens, suspected by, and odious to the government, by falsely 
 asserting that we are reduced to servitude under the civil and political 
 jurisdiction of a foreign j)rince, namely of the Roman Pontiff, and that we 
 are therefore unfaithful to the republic / ” ‘ 
 
 But did not the Popes formerly claim the right of deposing princes, and 
 of absolving their subjects from the oath of allegiance ? They certainly . 
 did; and so did we claim the same right, when we deposed George III., 
 and declared ourselves “ absolved” from our oath of allegiance to him : 
 and as our claim was assuredly nothing against liberty, but all for liberty, 
 so was also that of the Popes. In every instance of its exercise, known 
 to us, the Popes struck a blow at tyranny, and one, at the same time, for 
 the security and liberty of an oppressed people. Instead of blaming, 
 we should rather applaud them, for thus keeping alive, amidst political 
 darkness and confusion, that spark of popular liberty, which was destined, 
 a little later, to illumine the political horizon of Europe. That the friends 
 of European monarchs should object to this papal claim, we can readily 
 understand, because its exercise was necessarily directed against their 
 tyranny; but we cannot so easily explain,the opposition to it manifested 
 by our modern advocates of free principles. Yet the monarchists of 
 Europe, along with Mr. Pitt, have long since been fully satisfied on this 
 point; whereas our shrewder republicans have just begun to open their 
 eyes to the awful danger to our freedom growing out of a claim, no 
 longer advanced even by tlie Popes themselves ! 
 
 Having in the following pages devoted a special Essay to the examina¬ 
 tion of the historical facts connected with the first exercise of the deposing 
 power by a Roman Pontiff', we must refer our readers to it for full details 
 on the subject.^ Suffice it to say here, that the circumstances under which 
 this extraordinary power was first claimed having long since ceased, the 
 
 1 Dubias contra nos in vulgns voces spargunt, libros qui calumniantur sanctissirnam nostram 
 
 religion-em onini nisu apuil nules ignarosque divulgant; servos suos Catholicos haeresum suarutu 
 Tcneno ut inficiant niliil intactuni relinquunt ; patreniqoe suum qui ab initio mendax fuit iinitantes, 
 nos Catholicos coricives suos, quamvis patres nostri eanguinein suum tanquam aquam profuderint 
 pro vindicaiione libertatis contra oppressorem acatholicum, gubernio suspectos obnoxiosque reddere 
 utpote, ut falso asserunt, sub alieni principis, Contiflcis sc Romani ditioue politica et civili ia 
 servituiem redactos, ideoque reipublicae infidos.” Concilia BaUimor.. p. 223 ■ 
 
 2 See .‘Article VllI, Gregory Yll. and his Age—the Deposing Power, P. 152 seqq. 
 
xlvi 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 Popes liave, for nearly three centuries, virtually abandoned the claim, by 
 making' no attempt at its exercise. 
 
 •With a view to show that the influence of the Catholic Church tends 
 to debase its members, our adversaries direct attention to the material 
 condition of those countries which have continued faithful to the ancient 
 religion, and upon which the light of the reformation has never dawned. 
 These, they say, are very far inferior to the neighboring Protestant 
 communities in thrift, in literature, in morals, in liberty, and especially 
 in material and social improvement; and this inferiority they trace to the 
 difference of religious influence. We answer, by denying both the fact 
 as stated, and the inference thence drawn. Abundant evidence can be 
 • alleged to show, that, if in some respects Protestant are superior to 
 Catholic nations, in others the latter far surpass the former; and that, in 
 both cases, a difference of religious principles has much less to do with 
 the matter than is commonly believed by those opposed to Catholicity. 
 As, however, we devote six articles in the following collection to a 
 somewhat detailed comparison of the two classes of countries in question, 
 we will be excused from entering at present into the investigation ; 
 content with referring those who may be curious to examine the evidence, 
 as furnished even by impartial Protestant writers, to those papers.* 
 
 To those, again, who are in the habit of pointing, with a sneer, to the 
 comparatively degraded condition of "Mexico and South America, as a 
 
 natural consequence of the Catholic religion there professed, we would 
 
 * 
 
 beg to observe, that the masses of the population in Spanish and Portu¬ 
 guese America are either of pure Indian descent, or of mixed races ; and 
 that consequently, it is manifestly unreasonable to expect them to have 
 attained to the same elevated social level as ourselves, who belong to the 
 much boasted and loudly boasting Anglo-Saxon stock ! ^ As well might 
 we expect to find our own high degree of civilization in the descendants 
 of our North American Indians ! There is this important difference 
 between our policy and that of our Catholic neighbors, in regard to the 
 treatment of the aboriginal inhabitants of this continent; that, whereas we 
 have exterminated them or driven them out into the wilderness, they, on 
 the contrary, have ^settled down in their midst, intermarried with them, 
 taught them Christianity, and thus sought to raise them up in the social 
 scale, even at the expense of lowering themselves. While they have 
 met the aborigines half-way, and have been content to occupy with them 
 
 1 Entitled — Catholic and Protestant Countries — P. 454, seqq. In these articles our reasoning 
 and illustrations are based chiefly on Protestant testimony. 
 
 2 Not unmixed, however; for we have a strong iufution of the Celtic blood- 
 
INTAODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 xlvii 
 
 a middle ground between a liigh and a low level of civilization, we, 
 wrapped up in our inborn complacency, and vaunting our high social 
 position as the necessary result of our “ Anglo-Saxon blood,’’ have 
 looked with contempt upon the poor savages whom our fathers found in 
 the country, — miicli as the proud Pharisee looked down upon the poor 
 publican,— have disdained all sympathy for, or alliance with them, and 
 have caused them to melt away before our advancing and exclusive 
 civilization, as the snow melts away before the solar rays ! The com¬ 
 parison between us and our Catliolic neighbors may excite our compla¬ 
 cency, and flatter our pride ; it says but little for our humanity, and less 
 still* for our religious zeal or Christian charity. Our Protestant fellow 
 citizens would do well never to vaunt their superiority over their Mexican 
 and South American brethren !' American Catholics, on the contrary, 
 have reason to be proud of the Catholic colonists wlio explored and 
 peopled our continent.^ 
 
 To awaken suspicion against the Catholic priesthood, the public prints 
 have long been circulating among tlie people the extraordinary assertion, 
 that Lafayette warned American patriots against priestly influence, in the 
 followino- lano-iiau'e: “If ever the liberty of the United States is destroyed, 
 it will be by Romish priests.” d'he fact of such a declaration coming 
 from one who was a Catholic himself, if he Avas anytliing, bears the shimp 
 of very great intrinsic improbability, to say the least, on its face; yet it 
 passed current for truth, and was, nve think, generally believed by the 
 masses, who are prepared to devour any absuidity, provided it militate 
 against Catholics. Now, what will the impartial public think, should it 
 be ascerUained, that this charge, like most others wliich have been lately 
 circulated in this country to our disadvantage, is not only utterly 
 groundless, but is directly the reverse of truth ? That such is the case 
 clearly appears from the fact, that about the time when Lafayette is re¬ 
 ported to have used the expression, he said what is, in its import, precisely 
 the contrary, in a speech made by him in the French Chambers on the 9th 
 of April, 1832.® The subject in debate was the expulsion from France 
 of certain foreign refugees, including some Irish monks who were sojourn¬ 
 ing with the French Trappists at the famous Monastery of Melleray. The 
 French patriot, true to his principles in favor of civil and religious lib¬ 
 erty, earnestly opposed the bill, and in the course of his remarks employed 
 the following strong language : 
 
 1 We treat this subject in full in our review of Webster’s Bunker Hill Speech; p. 333, seqq. 
 
 2 For more on the subject, see the two papers reviewing Prescott’s Conquest of Mexico, p, 350, 
 seqq., and the three articles on Early Catholic Missions in the North-West, p. 298, seqq. 
 
 3 Found in the “ Memoires, Correspondence,” &c., of Lafayette, published by his favorite son George 
 Washington Lafayette, in six vols. 8vo. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 xlviii 
 
 “I know well that in the Report they have spoken of the expulsion of 
 some Eno-lishmen who had entered among the Trappists at Melleray, as a 
 measure "of good and wise administration. Such measures, gentlemen, 
 are not among those which will merit my eulogy. Mistake not rigor for 
 Btreno-th, nor despotism for power; then you will not ha\re need of all 
 these precautions, and the Trappists of Melleray will not be more dan¬ 
 gerous for you, THAN ARE THE JESUITS OF GEORGETOWN TO THE 
 
 United States.” 
 
 If the Jesuits of Georgetown — their head-quarters in this country 
 were not by him deemed dangerous to the United States, a fortiori, ac¬ 
 cording to the view of Protestants, the other Catholic Clergy could not 
 be so Considered either by them, or by Lafayette. We will treat of this 
 
 more fully hereafter.^ 
 
 But we are further told, that Catholics in this country stand aloof from 
 their Protestant fellow-citizens, and form a virtually separate society, 
 having neither feelings nor interests in common with others; and that 
 they cast their vote in a body for a particular political party. Let us 
 
 briefly examine these heads of accusation. 
 
 1 . If the charge of our forming a separate community, with separate 
 feelings and interests, refer to our religious organization and principles, 
 we must plead guilty; it is surely not our fault, but our privilege, to differ 
 on religious matters with such of our fellow-citizens as belong either to 
 no relio-ious communion whatever, or are members of the various conflict- 
 ing sects which exist among us. We cheerfully allow to them the right 
 of thinking and acting for themselves in matters of religion without 
 molestation, and they should surely grant us the same freedom: — Hane 
 veniam petimus, damusque vicissim. This privilege should be the more 
 cheerfully accorded to us, as we propose no innovation, but merely claim 
 the ri'dit of walking, as our forefathers, as well as the ancestors of our 
 accusers themselves walked, and went to heaven, for fifteen hundied 
 years, before the world was blessed or cursed with this Babel-like confu¬ 
 sion of tongues in the matter of religion. 
 
 If the accusation be meant to imply, that we are a separate civil 
 community, and that, as citizens, we have feelings and interests difierent 
 from those of others, we repel the charge as an injurious slander. Catholics 
 cordially participate in all our civic anniversary festivals ; they pray in 
 their churches for all their fellow citizens,_and for the permanent prosperity 
 of this free government; they nobly fight the battles of the country, and 
 they are as willing to shed their blood in its’ defense or for its honor, as 
 any of their brethren. In a word, they yield to none in patriotism and 
 valor. About one-half of our regular army — if not even a larger 
 
 1 See Article entitled, Lafayette and Professor Morse, p. 635, seqq. 
 
 2 The beautiful prayer, for the “ Ruling Powers,” composed by Archbishop Carroll, is frequentl/ 
 read in our churches. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. xlix 
 
 proportion — is composed of Roman Catholic soldiers ; a large number 
 of the sailors and marines, attached to our young but vigorous navy, 
 are also Catholics; g^nd our chief officers in both arms of the service have 
 often praised their fidelity to our flag, and their unfaltering courao-e in the 
 hour of danger. In every battle-field of our country,— in the two wars 
 against ProtestarU England, as well as in the late war against Qatholic 
 Mexico, Catholics have freely bled, by the side of their Protestant 
 fellow citizens, for the honor and triumph of our country. 
 
 After the death of General Washington, bishop Carroll pronounced a 
 splendid eulogy on his character, in the cathedral of Baltimore ; ‘ and 
 after the battle of New Orleans, General Jackson was received in triumph 
 in the Catholic cathedral, the lauiel garland of victory, woven by Catholic 
 hands, was placed on his brow by a Catholic priest; and the noble hero 
 might be seen weeping with joyful emotion, as he listened and responded 
 to the eloquent and patriotic address delivered on the occasion by the 
 Rev. M. Dubourg. ' In a beautiful addiess delivered in Washington by 
 Mr. Livingston, on the anniversary of the battle of New Orleans, the 
 distinguished orator feelingly * alluded to the pavement of the church 
 being worn by the holy knees of the Ursuline nuns, praying fervently 
 that victory might perch on the American banner, and drawing from the 
 feast of the day— that of St, Victoria — an omen of success! We 
 repeat it, the charge, understood in this sense, is a base calumnv. 
 
 2. But we are not friendly to the common schools. Our answer is 
 at hand. Let the Protestant majority, in this free country, make those 
 schools such as not'to wound the religious feelings, nor endanger the 
 religious faith of our children, and then'may they, with some show of 
 reason, taunt us with not cheerfully uniting in patronizing them. Let 
 them remove from them all sectarian books, all sectarian influences, all 
 teachers who abuse their position for purposes of proselytism ; let them 
 not force upon our children the reading of a version of the Bible, which, 
 in common with four-fifths of Christendom, we consider neither a genuine 
 nor a complete rendering of the divine word — and then they will make 
 it not only our interest, but our pleasure to unite with them in supporting 
 the common s 3 hools. It will be our interest; for, in common with our 
 fellow citizens, we pay our taxes for the erection and maintenance of 
 
 1 This solid and noble oration is published in full in the “ Biographical Sketch of Archbishop 
 Carroll,” above quoted, 158, seqq. The panegyric, by one who knew so well the Father of his 
 country, prcduced i profound sensation at the time it was delivered. 
 
 2 And with which a large and influential portion of the Protestant community in this country i» 
 so far dissatisfied, as to have taken steps already for issuing a new and different version more 
 *• ■'iiformable to their own views. 
 
 E 
 
 4 
 
1 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 those schools ; and if we do not patronize them, we liave to incur the 
 enormous additional expense of erecting separate schools for our own 
 children, and are thus double-taxed for educational purposes. The 
 motive which would prompt us to make so great a sacrifice must be 
 indeed a very strong one ; and it is really we who have the best right to 
 complain, not the Protestant majority which enforces such a hardship 
 upon us. If we could conscientiously do it, we have every possible 
 motive to patronize the common schools; but we hold, that is is better 
 far to suffer every earthly loss, than to jeopardize our faith, or that of 
 our children. Life is short, eternity never ending ; and “ what doth it 
 profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? ” ' 
 
 In countries much less free than ours, the common school system 
 is so organized, that Catholics and Protestants have separate schools. 
 Austria, with all her alleged tyranny, and with her triumphant Catholic 
 majority of population, freely grants separate schools, supported out of 
 the common fund, to the Protestant minority.^ England, with all her 
 hereditary hatred of Catholicity, permits the Catholics to have their own 
 separate schools; and this is not found to conflict in practice with her 
 common school system. Lower Canada, with its immense Catholic 
 majority, freely concedes the privilege of separate schools to the small 
 Protestant minority; and every one who reads the public prints must be 
 familiar with the controversy, which is now carried on in Canada, and 
 even in the Canadian parliament, on the subject of having this same 
 equitable provision extended, in all its privileges, to the Catholic minority of 
 Upper Canada. Strange, that Catholics, when in power, should be so liberal 
 in granting a privilege, which a Protestant majority is so slow to concede!* 
 Why should the freest country on the face of the earth form an excep¬ 
 tion, and be in fact the most exacting and tyrannical of all, in this matter 
 of education ? Can it be, that the immense Protestant majority in this 
 country is apprehensive of the influence, which, in the case of this equi-r 
 table provision being adopted, would be exercised by the small Catholic 
 minority ? Or are they afraid of entering the lists of free competition with 
 ' their Catholic fellow-citizens ? While all other pursuits are left open to 
 honest emulation, and the rivalry does good to all, why should education 
 alone be trammeled, by being made a state monopoly ? 
 
 1 St. Matthew xvi. 
 
 2 See Article II. on Catholic and Protestant Countries, for the Protestant authority sustaining 
 this assertion. Infra. P. 48o,seqq. We believe that this is also, at Jeast substantially, the case in 
 Catholic Ilavaria, as well as in Catholic France and Belgium ; at any rate we hear of no complaints 
 made by Protestants on the subject, in regard to these or other Catholic countries, where Protestants 
 exist as a resident body. See also a special paper on Common Schools; infra, P. 652, et seqq. 
 
 3 See late Canadian papers, 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 )i 
 
 We are persuaded, that the provision for separate schools would greatly 
 promote the permanency and prosperity of the common school system 
 itself. It would destroy an odious restriction on parental rights, it would 
 awaken a new energy in the cause of education, it would open new fields 
 for generous rivalry; and, above all, it would render education much 
 cheaper, and thereby lighten that heavy burden of taxation which is now 
 weighing us down. It is a generally conceded fact, that Catholics can 
 educate more cheaply than Protestants; and this may be one reason why 
 the latter are not willing to hazard a free competition with the former. 
 Grant separate schools, and our word for it, you will not have to pay much 
 more than half the taxes you have been in the habit of disbursing for 
 educational purposes. While we cheerfully submit to be guided by the 
 principle of taxing the rich in order to educate the poor, — since under our 
 present circumstances, it seems to be the only practicable means for effect¬ 
 ing an object so desirable,—we naturally object, in common with all 
 impartial and sensible men, to any excessive or unnecessary taxation.* . 
 
 In Catholic times, no taxation whatever was necessary for educational 
 purposes, especially for the education of the poor. Under the influence 
 of Catholic charity and zeal for education, colleges and schools sprang 
 up spontaneously in every part of Europe. These schools were free, in 
 every sense of the word ; no one was taxed to erect Ihem, no one had to 
 pay for entering them.’ The first college, the first schools, and the first 
 hospital, ever established on the North American continent, were erected 
 by Catliolics.’ In all countries and in all ages. Catholics, and par¬ 
 ticularly the Catholic clergy, have been foremost in advancing the cause 
 of popular education.^ 
 
 It would be a subject of very useful inquiry, whether our common 
 school system, as at present managed, be really conducive to a high 
 tone of refinement, and to the development of sound morals, in the youth 
 educated under its auspices. It is a Christian principle, of pretty general 
 acceptance, that human nature is corrupt and more prone to evil than to 
 good; and that consequently the religion of Christ is indispensably 
 necessary for healing its evil tendency and causing it to walk in the path 
 of virtue. The theory, which makes morality practicable, or even 
 
 1 It is generally known, that what is undertaken and executed by the state usually costs much 
 more money than what is done by indiTiduals:; and the same may be said of works carried on by 
 corporations. 
 
 2 See, for details, the Article on Schools and Universities in the “ Dark ” Ages, P. 113, seqq. 
 
 3 See the Articles on Catholic Missions in the North West; First Paper, P. 298, seqq. Also the 
 papers on the Conquest of Mexico : sup. cit. 
 
 4 See the Article — Literature and the Catholic Clergy, P. 96. Read also the Lecture oa Literature 
 and the Arts in the .Middle Ages; P. 77, seqq. 
 
Hi 
 
 INTRODUCTORY^ ADDRESS.. 
 
 possible, witliout religion, is evidently more Pagan than Christian. If 
 this be so, how can the children- educated in our common schools be 
 properly trained to sound morality, without a course of religious instruction, 
 which the system excludes ? To say, that sufficient religious knowledge 
 for the purpose may be imparted, without what is called Sectarian 
 teaching, seems to us wholly preposterous. To be adequate, the religious 
 instruction should be detailed and practical, not general, vague, and 
 theoretical; but the latter only can be compatible with our present school 
 system, while the former could scarcely be carried out without trenching 
 on forbidden ground. But let us look at the practical influence of the 
 system, as exhibited in the general moral conduct of the youth educated 
 in our common schools. Do these, in general, show, by their moral 
 deportment^ that they have been pfoperly trained ? Have they befen 
 taught politeness, respect for age, obedience to parents, morality in 
 thought, word, and deed ? We fear not. Our youth are growing more 
 and more licentious and demoralized, with each succeeding generation; 
 our boys particularly become men before they are half grown; they have 
 learned all else better, than the art of governing their passions. The 
 late fearful increase of crime, especially in our cities and towns, is a sad 
 proof of this increasing demoralization. To what an abyss of vice are 
 we hastening! There must be something sadly wrong somewhere. 
 
 3. But Catholics, especially those of foreign birth, vote together, and 
 vote for a particular polijbical party : the liberties of our country are 
 therefore endangered from this constantly augmenting foreign influence. 
 This charge is groundless, both in its facts and in its inferences. In the 
 first place, our native born Catholics have been heretofore divided, almost 
 equally, between the two leading political parties of the country; in the 
 second place, though the large majority of the Catholics of foreign birth 
 have been in the habit of voting with the democrats, yet they have been 
 far from unanimous on the subject; in the third place, the number of 
 Catholics in this country is now, and is likely to continue to be, much too 
 insignificant to rule the country in one way or another, either for good or 
 for evil. 
 
 Tlie followinof candid and sensible remarks from the Boston Post, a 
 political print of some standing, contains so much sound reasoning on 
 this subject, based upon facts tending to show the glaring absurdity of 
 the charge that “ foreigners are taking the country,^’ that we will be 
 pardoned for republishing them entire : 
 
 “ It is said that we shall be overrun with foreigners; that they will 
 rise upon native citizens and overpower them ; that Catholicism will prevail 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 liii 
 
 and deprive America of itjs liberties. These assertions liave bc€n reiterated 
 so ofen tliat thousands really fear such results. .Take the formei 
 apprehension, and let facts, so far as they bear on the question of 
 physical force, say how groundless that fear is. In the first place, for 
 the whole time we have been a nation, it is a fact that no such attempt 
 has been made; and if it ever should be made, such .s the admirable 
 working of our institutions, that the rule of a mob is utterly out of the 
 question. Permanent success, even where the foreign population out¬ 
 weighs the native population, is an impossibility ; for the whole force of 
 the countiy would at once be invoked to suppress such a rule. In the 
 next place, consider the utter folly, want of foresight, and suicidal 
 policy of such an attempt, if it should ever be made. Of our now thirty 
 millions of population one million' only are from Ireland ; of the thirty- 
 eifjht thousand churches that the census of 1850 shows as beinor in the 
 country, the Catholic are set down at one thousand two hundred and 
 twenty-one ; and of the eighty-seven millions of church property, the 
 Catholics have nine millions. Now, cannot this immense preponderance 
 of Protestantism and of Americanism take care of itself? Is it not perfectly 
 preposterous to suppose for a moment that the Irish Catholics will ever 
 attempt to ‘rise,’ as the phrase is, with such an enormous disparity 
 against them ? It is due, it is but bare justice, to our foreign population 
 to sny, that not only has there been no attempt at rising, but their conduct 
 — save only in cases when heated by liquor or otherwise excited — has 
 been almost invariably that of peaceable citizens, submissive to the laws. 
 They have a right to have such a certificate, as to the past, to stand in their 
 favor; and when we consider their position among us, we believe there is 
 no more danger of their ‘ rising ’ than there is of the falling of the stars.” 
 
 Much has been said and written of late years about the “ foreign vote.” 
 Both parties, on the eve of elections, have been in the habit of courting 
 ‘•foreigners;” who have thus, against their own choice and will, been 
 singled out from the rest of the community, and placed in a false and 
 odious position, by political demagogues for their own vile purposes. 
 That they have been thus severed from their fellow eitizens, and insulted 
 with the compliment of their influence as a separate body, has not been 
 so miudi their fault, as it has been their misfortune. From the successful 
 party the}'- have generally received, — with a few honorable exeeptions—• 
 little but coldness a/ler the election; while from the party defeated, they 
 have invariably received nothing but abuse and calumny. So they have 
 been, wiihout their own agency, placed between two fires, and have been 
 caressed and outraged by turns. Any appeal made to them by politicians, 
 in their character of religionists or foreigners, and not in that of American 
 citizens, is manifestly an insult, whether so intended or not; and we trust 
 that Catholics will always view such appeals in this light. Whenever it 
 is question of state policy, they can have no interests different from 
 those of their fellow citizens. Th.e laws which will be good for the latter, 
 will be good for them; at least they can live under any system of equal 
 
 1 The number is probably greater; but this does not affect the argument. 
 
 E2 
 
llv 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 legislation wliijli will suit the Protestant majority, with whom they 
 cheerfully share all the burdens of the country. 
 
 The Catholic bishops and clergy of the country have discreetly stood 
 aloof, and wisely abstained from exercising any influence in the exciting 
 political contests which have successively arisen. We ourselves, thougli 
 to the manor born, have never even voted on a political question ; and 
 we believe that most of our brother prelates and clergy have adopted the 
 same prudent precaution ; not surely through any want of interest in the 
 count/y, but chiefly with a view to remove from the enemies of our 
 Church the slightest pretext for slandering our religious character. The 
 only influence, we have sought to bring to bear on the members of our 
 communion, has been invariably in the interests of peace, of. order, and 
 of charity for all men, even for our most bitter enemies. Whenever we 
 have had occasion to address our people on the eve of elections, we liave 
 counseled them to avoid all violence, to beware of being carried away by 
 passion, to be temperate, to respect the feelings and principles of their 
 opponents ; and, in the exercise of their franchise as citizens, to vote 
 conscientiously for the men and measures they might think most likely to 
 advance the real and permanent interests of the republic. We defy any 
 one to prove, that we have ever attempted to exercise any other influence 
 than this. The contrary has been occasionally asserted by unprincipled 
 demagogues, for political effect; but the accusation, like many others made 
 in the heat of political contests, has in every instance turned out to be a 
 grievous slander; which was scarcely believed at the time, even by those 
 who were most busy in giving it circulation. 
 
 Never since the foundation of the republic has it been heard of, that 
 the Catholic bishops or clergy have taken an active part in conducting 
 the proceedings of political conventions, or in fomenting political excite¬ 
 ment, in the name of the religion of peace and love. They are not, and 
 never have been, either abolitionists or freesoilers, ultraists or politico- 
 religious alarmists. Nor have they ever ventured, either collectively oi 
 individually, to address huge remonstrances to congress, thi-eatening 
 vengeance in the name of Almighty God, unless certain particular 
 measures were passed or repealed ! Never have they been heard 
 brawling in the public streets and highways, haranguing in violent 
 language the already excited populace, lashing their passions into fury, 
 and openly exciting them to deeds of mob violence and bloodshed ! 
 Never have they been known to parade the Bible in noisy political 
 processions, thus prostituting the holy book, which breathes naught bui 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 Iv 
 
 peace and good will towards all men, to the vile piiiposes of politi(,-a] 
 faction and sectarian strife ! Ministers of other denominations have done, 
 or countenanced all these things ; and we cheerfully leave to them all the 
 glory, whether religious or political, which they can possibly derive from 
 such a line of conduct.* 
 
 Catholics of foreign birth are charged, in the same breath, with voting 
 the democratic ticket, and with being the secret or open enemies of 
 republican government! Is it then true, that a man cannot be a 
 democrat, without being a traitor to his country ? If so, then have ,the 
 destinies of this great republic been ruled, with very slight intermission, 
 for nearly thirty years by an organized band- of traitors, consisting of the 
 vast majority of our population ! Catholics can well afford to be traitors 
 in such goodly company. We are no politicians ourselves, and, so far 
 as we have had any political leanings,they have heretofore been to the 
 policy of the whigs; but, in common with every man of sound judgment 
 and liberal mind, we reprobate the spirit, which would thus inconsistently 
 and absurdly brand the advocates of different principles as enemies of the 
 country and of all liberty. The genius of our noble constitution is in 
 favor of allowing to ev^ery man the largest liberty of opinion in matters of 
 state policy, without his thereby incurring the risk of having his motives 
 questioned or his loj^alty impeached. If any^charge could be consistently 
 made or sustained against this large portion of our Catholic population, 
 it would be, on the contrary, tliat they have been generally in favor of 
 too enlarged a libert)^ to tally with the views of those who profess to 
 belong to the conservative school ; but to charge them with an intention 
 to undermine our republic, is simply an absurdity, as glaring as it is 
 malicious. 
 
 Those who are loudest in their denunciations of foreio-ners” seem to 
 
 O 
 
 forget what “foreigners’* have done for the country. They have filled 
 our army and navy ; they have fought our battles ; they have leveled our 
 forests, peopled our vast unoccupied territory, and filled our cities with 
 operatives and mechanics; they have dug our canals, built our turnpikes 
 and i-ailroads, and have thus promoted, more perhaps than any other class, 
 the improvement of the country and the development of its vast resources; 
 in a word, they have, in every way, largely contributed towards enhancing 
 
 1 It is also w«U known that, particularly during the late elections, Protesraut ministers took an 
 active part in the canvass. In several instances, they were even candidates for office, and in 
 some cases elected. It is they, and not the Catholics, who liave thus attempted to mingle religion 
 with politics ; and if ever there be biouglit about a union of Church and State in this republic.it 
 will surely not be accomplished by Catholics, but by those precisely who are foremost in the crusade 
 ugtiinst theml Let the lovers of freedom look to it in time! The Protestant ministers may, in 
 Cact, be said to he at the head of the abolition party iu the north. 
 
 i 
 
(vi 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 the wealth and increasing the prosperity of the republic. Do they deseivft 
 nothing but bitter denunciation and unsparing invective for all these 
 services ? Are they to be branded as aliens and traitors, for having thus 
 eiiectually labored to serve their adopted country ? 
 
 But they are foreigners in feeling and in interest, and they still prefer 
 their own nationality to ours. We answer first, that if this their alleged 
 feeling be excessive, and if it tend to diminish their love for the country 
 of their adoption, it is certainly in so far reprehensible ; but where is the 
 evidence that this is the case ? Has their lingering love for the country 
 of their birth, — with its glowing memories of early childhood and ripen- 
 in(>- manhood, of a mother’s care and a sister’s love, — interfered in aught 
 with their new class of duties as American citizens ? Has it prevented 
 their sharing cheerfully in the burdens, in the labors, and in the perils of 
 the country ? We believe not. Instead of their being unconcerned and 
 indifferent, their chief fault, in the eyes of their enemies, lies precisely in 
 the opposite, —in their taking too much interest in the affairs of the 
 republic. We answer, in the second place, that this natural feeling of 
 love for the country of their birth, growing as it does out of that cherished 
 and honorable sentiment which we denominate patriotism, will, in the very 
 nature of things, gradually diminish under the influence of new associa¬ 
 tions, until it will finally be absorbed into the one homogeneous nationality; 
 and thus the evil — if it be an evil — will remedy itself. The only thing 
 which can possibly keep it alive for any considerable time, would be 
 precisely the narrow and proscriptive policy, adopted in regard to citizens 
 of foreign birth by the Know Nothings and their sympathizers. The 
 endeavor to stifle this feeling by clamor and violence will but increase its 
 intensity. 
 
 We answer thirdly, that the influence of Catholicity tends strongly 
 to break down all barriers of separate nationalities, and to bring about 
 a brotherhood of citizens, in which the love of our common country and 
 of one another would absorb every sectional feeling. Catholicity is 
 of no nation, of no language, of no people; she knows no geographicj*' 
 bounds ; she breaks down all the walls of separation between ra::v. 
 race, and she looks alike upon every people, and tribe, and caste. Her views 
 are as enlarged as the territory which she inhabits ; and this is as wide ^ 
 die world. Jew and gentile, Greek and barbarian; Irish, German, Fieiicli, 
 Eindish, and ximerican, are all alike to her. In this country, to which 
 people of so many nations have flocked for shelter against the evils they 
 endured at home, we have a striking illustration of this truly Catholic 
 
 
I N T R 0 D U C T 0 K Y ADDRESS. 
 
 Ivli 
 
 spirit of the Church. Germans, Irish, French, Italians, Spaniards, Poles, 
 Hungarians, Hollanders, Belgians, English, Scotch, and Welch; differing 
 in language, in national customs, in prejudices, — in every thing hunian, 
 — are here brought together in the same Church, professing the same 
 faith, and worshiping like brothers at the same altars ! The evident ten¬ 
 dency of this principle is, to level all sectional feelings and local prejudices, 
 by enlarging the views of mankind, and thus to bring about harmony in 
 society, based upon mutual forbearance and charity. And in fact, so ffir 
 as the influence of our Church could be brought to bear upon the anomalous 
 condition of society in America, it has been exercised for securing the 
 desirable result of causing all its heterogeneous elements to be merged 
 in the one variegated, but homogeneous nationality. Protestantism isolates 
 and divides; Catholicity brings together and unites. Such have been the 
 results of the two systems in times past; such, from their very nature, 
 must be their influence on society at ail times and in all places. 
 
 The character of the foreign immigration into this country has been 
 undergoing a considerable change within the last few years; the German 
 element now strongly predominates over the Irish, and perhaps the 
 Protestant and infidel, over the Catholic. The disastrous issue of the 
 revolutionary movements which convulsed all Europe in 1848-9, has 
 thrown upon our shores masses of foreign political refugees, most of 
 whom are infidels in religion,and red republicans, or destructionists of all 
 social order, in politics. The greatest, and, in fact, the only real danger 
 to the permanency of our republican institutions, is to be apprehended 
 from this fast increasing class of foreigners, composed in general, of 
 men of desperate character and fortune,—of outlaws from society, with 
 the brand of infidelity upon their brow. Against the anarchical principles 
 advocated by these men the Catholic Church takes open ground ; and she 
 feels honored by their bitter hostility. It could not be otherwise. Her 
 principles are eminently conservative in all questions of religion and of 
 civil polity ; theirs are radical and destructive in both. Theirs is the old 
 war of Satan Against Christ; of the sons of Belial against the keepers of 
 the law ; of false and anti-social against true and rational liberty — “ the 
 liberty of the glory of the children of God.’* 
 
 If the lately organized secret political association warred against the 
 pernicious principles maintained by such foreigners as these, we would 
 » not only have no cause to complain, but we would rather applaud their 
 patriotic efforts in the cause of true freedom, and bid them God speed. But 
 what is our astonishment to find, that our boasted advocates of “American 
 
Iviii 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 principles/’ instead of opposing, secretly or openly sympathize with these 
 sworn enemie-s of all religion and of all social order — of God and man ; 
 as well as with the reckless and blood-stained Irish Orangemen ! Say 
 what you will, their efforts are directed almost solely against the Catholic 
 element in the foreign immigration, and chiefly against the Irish Catholics. 
 Their professions are belied by their acts, all of which point to Catholicity, 
 as the victim whose ruin is to be accomplished, at all hazards, in this 
 /ree and republican country. What else is indicated by the bloody riots 
 gotten up by hired street brawlers against the Irish Catholics ; what else 
 bv the wrecking and burning of Catholic churches ? If the true policy 
 of the (country demands a revision or repeal of the naturalization laws, then 
 bring about this result by fair, consistent, and honorable means; set about it 
 in an open and manly manner, as men, as Americans, as Christians, not 
 as cowards fearing the light of day, and skulking beneath the cover of 
 darkness. If a new policy in regard to foreign immigrants is to be . 
 adopted, or if even the alien and sedition laws are to be re-enacted, let 
 the country know your purpose in time, that all the true lovers of freedom 
 may be prepared for the issue. 
 
 But the Irish immigrants are vicious and immoral. That a portion of 
 them have their faults, — grievous and glaring faults, — we do not deny ; 
 but all fair and impartial men will admit, that the charge made against 
 them as a body is atrociously unjust. They have their faults, which are 
 paraded and greatly exaggerated by the public press ; but they have also 
 their virtues, which are studiously kept out of view. They have their 
 faults ; but have not the corresponding classes in our own population their 
 vices also, as great, as, if not greater than those of the class which is now 
 singled out as the victims of a virtuous public indignation ? * They have 
 their vices, but these are often faults of the head more than of the heart; 
 of imprudence and thoughtlessness, more than of deliberate design and 
 malice. If you look for the accomplished forger, the cold-blooded 
 midnight assassin or murderer, the daring burglar, the man who goes 
 always armed with the destructive bowie-knife or revolver, ready for 
 any deed of blood, you will, in general, have to seek elsewhere thau 
 among the class of Irish immigrants, whom you so fiercely denounce. 
 
 The Irishman’s vices are generally the result of intemperance, or of 
 the sudden heat of passion, sometimes aroused by outrages upon his 
 
 1 Besides, is no allowance to be made for them, in consequence of that grinding oppression with 
 which Protestant England has crushed them for centuries? We doubt much whether an}' other 
 people would have stood up so well under a tyranny so dreadful and so long ccntiuued. See tht 
 Article — Ireland and the Irish, p. 506 — sup. cit. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 hx 
 
 country or religion ; he is easily misled by evil associates, but his heart 
 is generally in the right place. You can accomplish everything with him 
 by mildness and persuasion; you can do nothing by overbearing harsh¬ 
 ness and reckless insult. The Irishman has no concealment in his 
 character ; what he is, he is openly and before the whole world ; and 
 this circumstance, together with the deadly hatred which has been lately 
 awakened against his countrymen in this land of boasted freedom, may 
 aid us in accounting for the singular fact, that so many Irish are arrested 
 for real or alleged crimes, whereas so many of our natives, equally or 
 more guilty, are permitted to go free ! A riot occurs in one of our cities ; 
 the Irish get the worst of it; they are overpowered by superior numbers, 
 are beaten and murdered ; and in the end it turns out, that all those 
 arrested are from the injured and outraged party themselves ! The 
 really guilty go free, the comparatively innocent are punished by the 
 arm of the law. 
 
 Those among them who fall into crime ha.ve been already, in most 
 instances, estranged from their Church by the influence of dangerous 
 associations, often with the depraved portion of our own native population. 
 They go not to the Church ; they hear or heed not the voice of their 
 pastors; they do not approach the sacraments ; they are Catholics only 
 in name, if even they retain the name. Whose fault is it, that they are 
 thus estranged and corrupted ? Not surely the fault of the Church, 
 which seeks to reclaim and to save them. How can the pastors of the 
 Chundi be held responsible for the misconduct of those who will not even 
 hear their voice, or consent to be brouo-ht under the savino- influence of 
 the religion which they inculcate ? Of all the charges which have been 
 lately made against the Catholic Church, the most glaringly unjust is 
 that, which ascribes the immorality of a certain class, amongst those who 
 may still call themselves Catholics, to the disastrous influence which she 
 exercises over their minds. These unfortunate men are thus seduced into 
 habits of crime by evil influences acting entirely outside the Church, and 
 then their crimes are laid at the door of the Church itself, which they 
 have been induced practically to abandon ! Was there ever iniquity 
 greater than this ? . 
 
 The Church weeps, like a tender mother, over the sins of her children ; 
 she employs every kind and tender influence to win them back to virtue ; 
 she goes after them in their wanderings, as the Good Shepherd after the 
 strayed sheep ; she has no word of reproach or railing to frighten them 
 farther away from the fold ; with earnest and unfaltering love, she seeks 
 
k 
 
 INIROBUCTORY .ADDRESS. 
 
 to reclaim them from their errors; no poverty, no misery however squalid 
 or loathsome, no disease however infectious deters her from persuing her 
 cherished work of mercy : and if she succeeds in her mission, her heart 
 overflows^ with unspeakable joy and gladness, and she bears them back 
 with maternal affection to her sanctuary, and lays them tenderl) and 
 joyously at the foot of her altars, as noble trophies of her labor of love. 
 Her ministers labor day and night for the spiritual welfare of their people ; 
 they wear out their health, and grow prematurely old in assiduous toil 
 among the poor and lowly; they often lay down their lives for their 
 flocks. And if their zeal is not always crowned with success, if scandals 
 still abound, in spite of their exertions to promote virtue, the unfortunate 
 result is surely not owing to their fault, because clearly beyond their 
 control. 
 
 The Church fails not at all times earnestly to inculcate on her children the 
 duty of being good citizens of this republic, and of sincerely loving, and 
 praying for all their fellow-citizens, even those who hate and revile them. 
 She often addresses them in language similar to that, which was lately 
 employed by one of our first prelates in age, learning, piety,-and station,— 
 Dr. Keiirick, the Archbishop of Baltimore, — the first episcopal see in the 
 country. We cannot better conclude this Address than with an extract 
 from his recent Pastoral Letter; and we are quite sure that every bishop, 
 every priest, and every layman of our Church in this country will cheer- 
 fully subscribe to every sentiment and to every word therein contained; 
 
 “ We take this occasion, brethren, to recommend to your most earnest 
 prayers the peace, prosperity, and happiness of tliese Umted States, and 
 of all our fellow-citizens. It is not our province, as pastors of the Church, 
 to meddle with political interests: but it is our duty to exhort you to con¬ 
 tinue faithful to the constitution and government under which you have 
 the happiness to live, obedient to the laws, respectful to all the civil 
 authorities, and to prove yourselves by your conduct peaceful and orderly 
 citizens Be not concerned at the suspicions cast on your loyally and 
 patriotism, and the eft'orts made to proscribe you, and check the progress 
 of our holy religion. ‘Who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous 
 of good ? But if, also, you suffer any thing for justice sake, blessed are 
 ye. iVnd be not afiaid of their fear, and be not troubled. But sanctify 
 the Lord Christ in your hearts.’ Pursue, then, the peaceful path of 
 industry, regardless of political partizanship ; shun the use of intoxicating 
 liquors ; avoid secret societies; practise your religion ; teach it to your 
 children; take every opportunity to perform kind offices towards your 
 fellow-citizens, whatever wrongs you may endure, and pray that God 
 may lead all to the knowledge of the truth. This course of conduct is your 
 best defense — your only security, whilst it will vindicate most effectually 
 the h.onor of the Church. Keep far away from scenes of danger; from 
 tumult and bloody strife. In the retirement of your chambers, and at the 
 foot of the altar, pour out your hearts in prayer, that God may turn away 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDREvSS. 
 
 lx 
 
 His anger and in the day of His just visitation may remember mercy. 
 Implore Him to relieve our country from pestilence, which now strews 
 the land with victims, from the disorders of the elements which spread 
 terror and destruction,— but, above all, from the maddening influence of 
 the demon of civil discord. Ask Him to continue and perpetuate those 
 free institutions, which have hitherto united in social brotherhood and 
 concord the millions of men of various nations and creeds, that, from the 
 Atlantic to the Pacific, bask in the sunshine of liberty. Pray that to all 
 may be imparted the still greater blessings of faith and love, that we may 
 with one heart and mouth glorify God and fulfill his law, in order to our 
 salvation.’* 
 
 « 
 
r 
 
 
 
 
PART I. 
 
 HISTORICAL. 
 
 

 
 A V 
 
 • -I 
 
 7 
 
 J 
 
 \ 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 'j. A. 
 
 
 f *'.’ 
 
 ■'1 
 
 "i ' ■ 
 
 .' <■ .» 
 
 i 
 
 i r. ..I ^ .1 •:.? 
 J. .f f 
 
 i i I 
 
 f M 
 
 I 
 
 % 
 
 .‘Jl 
 
 X 
 
 \, 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 j 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 9 
 
 Fi 
 
 
 . ^ 
 
 *,1 
 
 ■'is 
 
 ' ->4-: 
 
 
 ■ ' s*’ 
 ■ 
 
 
 I 
 
 »4 
 
 . 
 
 4 
 
 
 i 
 
 • / 
 
 >■ 
 
 - % 
 
 f 
 
 / . 
 
 k 
 
 ■ wrf 
 
 *1 
 
 -V 
 
 lX 
 
 •i 
 
 A 
 
 
 I 
 
 if 
 
 •I. 
 
BtDitma, ®ssn^s, aib ICtctaits. 
 
 PART I.-HISTORIOAL. 
 
 I. CHURCH HISTORY.'' 
 
 ARTICLE 1.-THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 P&lma and Palmer as historians —Rome and Oxford — Gratuitous assertions — Promises of Christ 
 in favor of the Church — Essential and Non-essential doctrines — Bishop Whittinghaun —■ 
 Puseyism — Palmer’s division — Purity of early Church — The Age of persecution — Donatists — 
 Striking avowal — Peter in Rome —The “ Thunderiug Legion " —Disciplina arcawt — Testimonies 
 of Sts. Ignatius and Justin on holy Eucharist — tlases of Popes Victor arid Stephen — The 
 Primacy*—St. Irenaeus —The Cross of Constantine — Early heresies — Church of Rome — Story 
 of Liberius and of Honorius I. — Monastic Life—Holy Virginity — Nestorius — St, Cyril of 
 Alexandria — St. Patrick — Early British Churciies — Primitive Irish Chuiclies — St Simeon 
 Stylites —“Rank Popery” — Early “abuses and corruptionsWisdom of the Church — The 
 Seventh and Eig-hth General Councils. 
 
 We notice tosfether the ecclesiastical histories of Professors Palmer and 
 Palma, not on account of the similarity in name of the two distinguished 
 authors, but for other obvious reasons. They have both lately given to 
 the world the results of their respective labors in a very interesting 
 department of human inquiry. Both, though in very different ways, 
 have attempted to trace the various phases and vicissitudes which mark 
 the history of the Church of Christ. Both too are men of distinguished 
 ability and learning. 
 
 They belong to two different, and we may say opposite schools ;—those 
 of Rome and Oxford ; though the latter not long since manifested some 
 disposition to approximate to the former. And they are tolerably good 
 representatives of these two schools. The Roman Palma, as a historian, 
 has a character distinct in its outline and clearly marked in all its 
 features ; with a decided and unfaltering step he boldly treads the path 
 of antiquity, with all the tortuous windings of which he is thoroughly 
 
 * I. A compendious Ecclesiastical History, from the earliest period to the present 
 time. By the Rev. William Palmer, M. A., of Worcester Colle^^e, Oxford; author 
 of Origines Liturgicoe, &c., &c. With a Preface and Notes by an American Editor. 
 New York, 1841. 1 vol. l2mo. pp. 228. 
 
 II. Praelectiones Historise Ecclesiasticte, quas in Collegio Urbano Sacrae Congre- 
 gationis de Propaganda Eide, et in Pontificio Seminario Romano habuit Joannes 
 Baptista Palma, Sacerdos Romanus, Hist. Eccles. Professor. Toini IV, 8vo. Roma, 
 1838— 1840. 
 
 (Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, delivered in the Urban College of the Sacred 
 Congregation de Propaganda Fide, and in the Pontifical Seminary of Rome , by 
 John Baptist Palma, a Roman Priest, Professor of Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 F2 5 17 
 
18 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 acquainted. The Oxford Palmer is less decided in his historical 
 character; though he betrays no lack of confidence in his assertions,— 
 else he were not a genuine Englishman,— yet he appears to pursue the 
 ancient path with the uncertain air of one who hesitates, and is not well 
 acquainted with the road. As the French would say, he is evidently 
 gene ; ' he appears like a stranger in a foreign country, who would fain 
 act as thouo-h he were at home. He belongs to a school which has 
 
 o o 
 
 manifestly been for too short a time in the remote land of antiquity, to 
 have become naturalized to its climate, or well acquainted with its rich 
 productions. 
 
 Nor does the contrast stop here. The two professors meet indeed on 
 the common field of Church History, yet do they pursue routes so 
 different, as seldom to come in contact with each other. The Roman 
 bears “ the labor of the day and the heat; ” he turns up the soil, waters 
 it with the sweat of his brow, and cultivates it with untiring industry. 
 The Oxfordite skims lightly over its surface ; gambols about its borders, 
 culling a flower here, and plucking a fruit there; and, for the 
 .amusement or gratification of his readers, we apprehend, he often 
 •trips, falls, or turns somersets ! 
 
 Dropping the figure, the Roman professor enters critically into his 
 subject; he gives us both sides of every question which he handles ; he 
 furnishes his authorities as he proceeds ; he states and refutes objections, 
 ancient and modern : and when you have read his' history, you are 
 compelled to say, either that he has reason on his side, or at least, that 
 his views and statements are very plausible. The Oxfordite is far from 
 entering on any such dull and plodding labor. He would seem to con¬ 
 sider it a bootless toil. Except scriptural quotations, and one reference to 
 his own works, and another to the authority of the Protestant archbishop 
 Usher, he does not, we believe, give us one single reference from the 
 beginning to the end of his work ! He furnishes many passages from 
 the ancient documents, but he does not tell us once whence they are 
 taken ; and unless his readers are so conversant with those writings, as 
 ■ to be able to hunt up and examine his quotations for themselves, they 
 • must wholly rely on his bare word for their genuineness and.accuracy. 
 
 This is a most serious defect. Nor let it be alleged, that suqh 
 : learned references are out of place in a work avowedly intended for 
 popular use. In such books, they are perhaps more requisite than in 
 •any other, for the reason just assigned. Without some such guide, the 
 i unlearned are left wholly at the mercy of every smatterer and theorizer, 
 who may choose to embody his peculiar views in the form of history. 
 And this is unhappily but too often the case in popular works, especially 
 in those written in the English language to suit the palate of Protestant 
 readers. Of no book, perhaps, is it more true than of Palmer’s Church 
 History. If any one ever needed proofs in support of his assertions, he 
 surely does, as we hope abundantly to show in the sequel. 
 
 1 Constrained — ill at ease. 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 19 
 
 , For our own part, we would not give a rush for the statements of any 
 mere partisan historian, unless they be confirmed by constant references to 
 the original authorities. We like to have chapter and verse for every 
 thing. We value those historical books only, the margins of which are 
 filled with quotations of the proper documents, and the writers of which 
 give sufficient evidence that they have not taken these authorities at 
 second hand, but hive drunk deeply themselves at the fountain heads. 
 We like books written after the manner of Lingard’s History of England. 
 There is at least some satisfaction in reading such works. One feels that 
 he has a guide, which he can consult in an emergency. But when there 
 is nothing to depend on, but the mere assertions of a flippant writer, who 
 is evidently not unbiased in his views, every impartial judge must 
 receive such statements with distrust. They are somewhat like the 
 tedious'and over-colored narratives of a traveler, who retails his “first 
 impressions” of a foreign country entirely from memory. They have 
 not the weight, and they merit not the name of real history. We make 
 these general remarks, because, as we shall see, they are fully applicable 
 to the work of Palmer, and because in this age of specious historical 
 theories, pompously styling themselves philosophies of history, one 
 cannot be too guarded in relation to the statements he is called on to 
 credit. 
 
 It will be easily gathered from what we have thus far said, that in 
 comparing the Oxford Palmer with the Roman Palma, we are compelled 
 to award the palm to the latter. Here we have at least one genuine 
 Roman priest. All who were acquainted with him could not fail to 
 mark his great erudition, his moderation and modesty in his statements, 
 and his extensive learning and research. For more than twenty years, 
 he was a distinguished professor of Church History in two of the 
 twenty-four great colleges of Rome.' He became gray in this delightful 
 study. It grew to be identified with his very being, and it was almost 
 the idol of his devotion. He thoroughly examined all the original 
 documents which he cites : and this minute and critical knowledsre of 
 antiquity appears on every page of his work. This learned erudition 
 is, in fact, a distinctive characteristic of Italian writers generally; ,as the 
 contrary feature,— that of superficial flippancy,— is distinctive of most 
 Enoflish writers, and of few more so than of Palmer. 
 
 Our chief object, in this paper, is to present a summary review of the 
 Compendious Ecclesiastical History by the Oxford Professor. But our 
 limits will allow us merely to touch very briefly on the chief character 
 of the work. To examine all the historian’s statements, to supply all 
 his omissions, and to correct all his errors, would require a volume much 
 larger than the one he lias given to the world. As he gives no proof 
 whatever for anything he asserts, we would be justified in repelling 
 
 1 He became afterwards Latin Secretary of the present sovereign Pontiff, and in the disgraceful 
 attack on the papal palace which followed the assassination of the late Count Rossi, he was shot 
 dead by one of the assassins, almost by the side of his illustrious sovereign. 
 
20 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 gratuitous assertion, by mere denial without proof. Tliis would be in 
 accordance with the well-known aphorism : quod gratis asseritur gratis 
 negatur — “what is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously. 
 But we will do a Catholic work of supererogation, and supply proof as 
 we proceed; at least as far as our limits will possibly allow. 
 
 We would not be understood as condemning indiscriminately the his¬ 
 tory of Professor Palmer. The book has many good qualities, which we 
 greatly admire. We have been much pleased with its general plan and 
 scope, and with the division into epochs, with, however, one exception, 
 to which reference will soon be made. The chief excellence with which 
 we were struck, is a certain pious vein which pervades the work, sus¬ 
 tained by appropriate and select examples of ancient sanctity. In this 
 feature we are delighted to recognize no little of the true Catholic spirit. 
 
 He lay.s down the plan of his work in the first, or introductory chap¬ 
 ter. He says: 
 
 “ Tlie history of the Church, then, is not like other histories, in which 
 the progress and fate of human enterprises is [are?) described; it is the 
 fulfillment of God’s^will for the salvation of man, the accomplishment 
 of prophecies, the triumph of grace over the imperfection and sins of 
 nature. The perpetuity of the Church, its propagation in all nations, 
 the succession of the true faith, the manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s 
 assistance in the lives of Christians; the calamities, errors, afflictions, 
 which, in all ages, beset it—afford new proofs of Christianity itself, and 
 inspire the devout mind with humility and faith.” ‘ 
 
 In another place, he says; 
 
 “ The promises of our Lord to his Disciples, that the Spirit of Truth 
 should lead them into all truth, and abide with them forever, that the 
 gates of hell should not prevail against his Church, and that he himself 
 would be always with his Disciples — imply that the faith revealed by 
 Jesus Christ should, in every age, continue to purify and sanctify the 
 hearts and lives of his real followers; and we may hence infer that the 
 belief which has, in all ages, been derived by the Church from the holy 
 Scriptures; the great truths which Christians have always unanimouslv 
 held to be essential to the Christian profession; which have supported 
 them under the tortures of martyrdom, and transformed them from sin 
 to righteousness ; that such doctrine^ are, without doubt, the very same 
 which God himself revealed for the salvation of man.” ^ 
 
 From the solemn promises of Christ just alluded to, we would infer 
 more than suited the purpose of the Oxford divine. We would infer 
 that the belief which was held in all ages of the Church as the revela¬ 
 tion of God, was derived from, or conformable to, the holy Scriptures. 
 If the Church, in her official capacity, could be mistaken in the under¬ 
 standing of the Scriptures, then were all the solemn promises of Christ 
 of no avail, and utterly nugatory. The question would constantly recur 
 — did the Church actually derive such and such doctrines from the 
 written Word of God? And if private judgment said she did not, the 
 principle implied by Dr. Palmer above would require that such tenets 
 
 1 Introduction, p. 4. 
 
 2 Pp. 10, 11, chap. ii. 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 21 
 
 should be rejected. He thus upsets with one hand, what he had built 
 up with the other! Consistency is a jewel, which sparkles only on the 
 brow of truth. 
 
 Tliere is also, it seems to us, in the above passage, an implied asser¬ 
 tion of the hackneyed distinction of Jurieu between essential and non- 
 essential (Joctrines, the former of which must be received, and the latter 
 may be rejected without sin. We utterly eschew this leveling principle, 
 which opens wide the door to latitudinarianism and indifference in mat¬ 
 ters of religion. The Scriptures make no such distinction ; Christ made 
 none such, when he said: “He that believeth not, shall be condemned.” * 
 Whatever Christ taught and his apostles promulgated as doctrine, no 
 matter how trivial it may seem to proud human wisdom, is equally 
 essential to faith. Of the objects of faith, it is as true as it is of those 
 ofmoials,that “he whooffendeth in one is become guilty of all.” ^ 
 
 We have remarked on these passages, because they afford a clue to 
 the entire work. They exhibit the object and purpose of the writer in 
 composing his history. And they lead us to suspect, what the perusal 
 of the work clearly proves, that it is Church History set to Puseyism, or 
 rather Puseyism set to Church History. The Professor started out with 
 assuming his preconceived theory, half Catholic and half Protestant, and 
 he consequently makes the facts of history bend to its maxims; hence ^ 
 his frequent blunders in point of fact, and hence the partisan spirit 
 which evidently pervades his whole publication. 
 
 The history comes before the American reading community under 
 the sanction and sponsorship of a distinguished individual,— no less a 
 personage, we are given to understand, than the Right Reverend W. R. 
 Whittingham, the Protestant Episcopal bishop of Maryland. He is the 
 “American editor” who writes the preface and notes. We had been told, 
 that Bishop Whittingham stood high among his brother religionists for 
 his learning and ability. If such be the case, he has certainly given us a 
 very poor specimen of both, in his office of American editor of Palmer. 
 As we hope to prove hereafter, the work would have been much more 
 accurate without his notes; and it would even have suffered very little 
 from the omission of his preface. The notes are, almost without an 
 exception, grossly inaccurate in point of fact; they are, in general, an 
 attempt either to falsify the true statements of Palmer, or to make bad 
 worse. And, like this author, he too would have us believe him on his 
 bare word ! 
 
 In his preface, he thus indorses the statements of the Oxford historian : 
 
 “A great degree of accuracy in general outline and in minute detail 
 wherever that is given, is another admirable characteristic of Mr. Pal¬ 
 mer’s work. It has been increased, perhaps [perhaps !)y by the correc¬ 
 tion of one or two slips of a hasty pen, in this edition; and the minute 
 differences, of statement or opinion, in some of the editor’s additional 
 notes, will show how thoroughly he shared in the author’s anxiety to be 
 
 1 St. Mark, xvi. 
 
 2 St. James, ii, 10. 
 
22' 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 really useful — an end to be attained, in a work like this, only by the 
 most sci:upulous adherence to truth. If error as to fact be found in the 
 book now presented to the reader, it has escaped not only the attention, 
 of the learned and indefatigable author, but the close examination of his 
 humble and grateful fellow-laborer.” ‘ 
 
 We scarcely know through what kind of glasses the Protest^t bishop 
 examined Prof. Palmer's book; but they certainly favored obliquity of 
 vision. They were probably manufactured at Oxford, and partook of the 
 doubtful character of most other things which have recently emanated 
 from that city. The manufacturer must have age and experience in the 
 business, before he can hope to produce articles of real merit. If the 
 bishop will ^condescend to accept our offer, made in all courtesy and 
 kindness, we will lend him a pair of glasses, of the real Roman grinding, 
 without a single flaw ; and we assure him that through them he will be^ 
 enabled to see things aright, and in apiew light altogether. 
 
 By means of these same glasses, we have, at the very first glance, been 
 able to detect more than fifty egregious blunders in the work, including, 
 of course, the famous notes, nearly all of which we have'been constrained 
 to put on our black list. These errors, many of them, regard important 
 facts ; and others consist of unfair statements, or of omissions in matters, 
 of vitaP consequence. The sun was thought to be without spots, until 
 the Jesuit Scheiner, or the Catholic philosopher Galileo, proved their 
 existence by means of the telescope. Dr. Palmer’s book has even more 
 spots than the sun, though Bishop Whittingham could not discover them. 
 And no wonder, as the Oxford glasses which he used, mystify more, 
 and are, therefore, less serviceable than even the naked eye ! 
 
 Mr. Palmer divides his history into five epoclis. We will give his own 
 language, which contains the gist of his new Puseyite theory of Church' 
 History. 
 
 “ First, the ages of persecution which terminated with the accession of 
 the Emperor Constantine to universal empire, in A. D. 320, and during 
 which the Church was purest. 
 
 “Secondly, the ages (A. D. 320 — 680) when heresies invaded the 
 Church, and were repelled by the six holy oecumenical synods ; and 
 when the ravages of barbarians and heathens were counterbalanced by the 
 conversion of many nations. 
 
 “Thirdly, the period (680— 1054) in which ignorance, worldliness, 
 and superstition (!) began to fall thickly on the Church, though an earnest 
 spirit of piety still continued to produce evangelists, saints, and martyrs, 
 and to add wide regions to the Church of Christ. 
 
 “Fourthly, the times (1054— 1517) when the east and west were 
 estranged by the ambition of the Roman Pontiffs (!) ; when tliose bishops, 
 elevated to the summit of temporal and spiritual power in the west, 
 introduced numberless corruptions and innovations (!) ; and when their 
 power began to fade away. (!) 
 
 “Fifthly, the epoch f}5\7 — 1839) when a reformation being called 
 for, was resisted by those wlio ought to have promoted it (!) ; wlien the 
 
 \ 
 
 1 Preface, p. 9. 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 2a. 
 
 western Church became divided; and at length infidelity came to tlireateU; 
 universal destruction.”* 
 
 Here are misstatements enough surely, especially under the three last; 
 epochs. But these apart, ■— of which more hereafter, — we are pleased 
 with the division, with the exception of the second epoch, which is made,, 
 whimsically enough, to terminate at the sixth general council; these six, 
 councils being all that it suited Mr. Palmer’s purpose to admit, out of at 
 least eighteen such assemblies, which have equal claims with those to be,, 
 general councils. But the others were far too‘popish to suit the fastidious 
 Oxford palate ! 
 
 For the sake of convenience, we will briefly run over these epochs, as, 
 they come in order of lime, availing ourselves of the author’s admissions, 
 supplying sonie of his many omissions, and correcting a few of his more 
 glaring blunders as we proceed. . We could not correct all ; nor even half,, 
 without re-writing his whole history. Nor do we intend in our rapid 
 sketch to forget to pay our respects, as in duty bound, to Bishop Whit- 
 tino'ham, the Right Reverend editor and annotator. 
 
 O ’ o , 
 
 EPOCH I, A. D. 34 — 320.^ 
 
 During this epoch. Professor Palmer tells us that “the Church was 
 purest,^* We do not object to this term of praise, if it be meant only to, 
 imply, that Christians were then in general more fervent, more disen-, 
 gaged from the world, and more self-devoted and heroic. If it be meant- 
 to signify, that there were no moral disorders or heresies among the early 
 Christians, or that the Church, as a Church, was then more pure in 
 doctrine than subsequently, as would appear to be the historian’s drift, 
 then do we protest against the use of the term. The writings of the. 
 earliest fathers, and especially those of Tertullian and St. Cyprian,’, 
 abundantly prove, that even during the first three centuries, there were, 
 as Christ had foretold there would be in all ages, grievous scandals to be 
 deplored; while the five books of St. Irenaeus “against heresies,” and 
 more especially the historical work of St. Epiphanius on the same subject, 
 establish the fact, that then, as subsequently, the purity of the faith was 
 repeatedly assailed. But the Church triumphed then, as afterwards, 
 because Christ, her divine Spouse, had solemnly promised that she should 
 triumph. We make these remarks, because Protestant writers, with a 
 view to establish their preconceived theory of a defection of the Church 
 in the fourth and following centuries, from the disorders which then 
 occasionally prevailed, have been too much in the habit of concealing 
 these incontestable facts, and of drawing a too highly colored picture of 
 earlier purity. 
 
 This w'-as emphatically a period of struggle and of per'^ecution. The 
 
 1 P. 5 2 Embraced in the first six chapters,from p. Ito p. 31. 
 
 S In their respective treatises— De Panitentia and De Lapsis, and in iheir other works. . 
 
24 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 Church then passed through a fiery ordeal: for two hundred and fifty 
 years the colossal power of the Roman empire was employed to crush her: 
 the' blood of her martyrs flowed like water; but like water it served to 
 fertilize the earth ! Christ triumphed in his spouse : his promises were 
 redeemed; the “ gates of hell did not prevail; ” twelve poor fishermen 
 conquered the world, and reared the cross on the proudest monuments 
 of fallen Rome ! The chief , persecutors died a terrible death, so graphi¬ 
 cally painted by the eloquent Lactantius, in the fourth century.^ Why 
 did not our historian at least allude to this remarkable fact ? His whole 
 account in fact of the ten general persecutions,^ is very meagre and 
 imperfect, even for a compendious history. He, however, gives us in full 
 the beautiful letter of the church of Smyrna, with its touching account of 
 the martyrdom of St. Polycai p,’’ concluding with a passage which clearly 
 proves the veneration paid, in the earliest-times, to the sacred remains of 
 the martyrs. 
 
 Speaking of the Donatists, who separated from the Church early in the 
 fourth century, he uses this language : “ These sectarians, called Dona¬ 
 
 tists, were, after full examination of their cause by councils of bishops 
 and by the emperor Constantine, universally rejected and condemned. 
 They continued, however, for two or three centuries to disturb and 
 persecute the Church in Africa. Separations like these, where rival 
 worship was established, were in those ages regarded as most heinous sins, 
 and destructive of salvation.”^ This is truly a sweeping admission, 
 extorted by the most overwhelming evidence of history. It seals the 
 death warrant of all those separatists of modern times, who have “ estab¬ 
 lished rival worships,” including of course the Anglican Church, which 
 fairly comes under this category ! 
 
 Among his many important omissions during the epoch under consid¬ 
 eration, we will briefly allude to the following. He does not tell us that 
 St. Peter went to Rome and died there ; a fact to which all antiquity bears 
 evidence,® and which he himself is forced afterwards to grant. He even 
 says : “the date of St. Peter’s epistle from Babylon suggests the proba¬ 
 bility of his having preached in Chaldea; whereas it is a notorious fact, 
 admitted we think by all the learned, that Babylon of Chaldea was not 
 then in existence. Grotius, a learned Protestant, and others, with much 
 more probability, think that by Babylon St. Peter meant Pagan Rome,, 
 which St. John and the early Christians designated by that name. 
 
 He likewise makes no mention whatever of the famous miracle obtained 
 by the prayers of the Christian legion, which served in the army of 
 Marcus Aurelius, in his expedition against the Quadi and Marcomanni. 
 The miracle secured victory to the imperial arms, in a most signal 
 manner, and under the most trying circumstances. It was public and 
 notorious ; it is attested by Tertullian and Eusebius, and is established 
 
 1 Be Morte Per.secutoriim, 2 P. \^.et.seq. 3 P. 16, 4 P.27. 
 
 6 Among orlier works on this suViject, see Fogginio— De itinere Romano et Episcopatu D. Petti 
 JtoI. 4'o. — where overwhelming evidence on the subject is accumulated. 6 P. 8. 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 25 
 
 by other incontestable evidence. It was most glorious for the Christian 
 name, and it obtained from the emperor himself for the legion the title 
 of legio totmns, or thundering legion.' 
 
 Another omission, much more important still, is that of the discipUna 
 arcani, or discipline of secret, very common in the early Church ; and 
 without which, in fact, it is almost impossible to understand tlie faith 
 and worship of the epoch of which we are speaking. This discipline’ 
 required caution and concealment in speaking, before pagans and the 
 uninitiated, of the greater mysteries of the Christian faith, such as the 
 Trinity and the Eucharist, in order not “ to throw pearls before swine.” ^ 
 The unquestionable prevalence of this discipline, is a triumphant evidence 
 of the belief in* the real presence during that period.^ Was this the 
 reason why our historian said nothing about it ? 
 
 He is himself very fond of this same discipline of secret, in regard to 
 those things which he did not find it expedient to state, because they 
 might be opposed to his theory. Thus he tells us “ of the Gnostics and 
 Manicheans,'' who held that our Lord’s body was not real, but a mere 
 phantom, and that he did not die on the cross; but he forgot to give 
 us this testimony of St. Ignatius, martyr, bearing directly on the subject: 
 ‘‘they (the Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, 
 because they do not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the f,esh of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father by 
 his goodness resuscitatedF ^ 
 
 We should be endless, were we to attempt to supply all his important 
 omissions in this way. For once, however, he violates the discipline of 
 secret, and gives us pretty correctly the famous testimony of St. Justin, 
 martyr, on the holy Eucharist. The philosopher martyr had set him the 
 example for this violation, as he had found it necessary, for the defense 
 of Christianity against the base slanders of its enemies, to speak out 
 plainly on the belief of the early Christians upon this subject,— too 
 plainly as we shall see to suit the taste of our Oxford divine. Here are 
 his words as cited by Mr. Palmer: “We do not receive it (the 
 Eucharist) as common bread £>r common drink ; but as, by the word of 
 God, our Savior Jesus Christ was incarnate, and had flesh and blood 
 for our salvation, so also we have been instructed that the f^od, blessed 
 by the word of prayer which is from him, through which our flesh and 
 blood by a change are nourished, is (spiritually) the flesh and blood of 
 that incarnate Jesus.” ^ 
 
 That word spiritually, it is almost needless to say, came from Oxford ; 
 
 1 For a full account and vindication of this miriicle, see Palma, Prcelectiones. vol. i, P. 1, p 76, et 
 seq. c. xiv. 
 
 2 Palma, ibid. p. 82, ei seq. The best thing on the subject is perhaps the learned dissertation of 
 Schelestrate —De DiscipUna Arcani. 
 
 3See “Faith of Catholics,” vol ii, p. 158, seq^., Edition of Dolman, London, 1848; in 3 vols. 8vo. 
 See also tb“ “ Amicable Discussion ” 
 
 4 'Ve greatly doubt'whether the Manicheans taught any such thing. 5 P. 135. 
 
 6Epistola ad Smyrnaeos, p. 36, tom. ii, PP. Apostolic. Amstelodaini, 1724. 
 
 7 The passage is taken from an apology (the first) of St. Justin to the Iloinan emperor and senate — 
 though it might be taKen from any other of St Justiii’s writings, for all .Mr. Palmer tells us. 
 
 G 
 
26 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 and like many other things that have lately come from Oxford, it makes 
 arrant nonsense. It makes St. Justin say, that as Christ took flesh 
 really, so “ the food,” (fee. becomes his flesh spiritually ! Why was that 
 word interjected at all, unless it was thought and felt, that the sense 
 would be very different without it ? Are we to give credit to Mr. 
 Palmer for this interpolation, or is it '' a hasty slip of the pen,” by his 
 Rio’ht Reverend editor and commentator ? 
 
 O 
 
 The errors of our historian in point of fact, though not so numerous 
 in this as m the subsequent epochs of his history, yet are frequent. He 
 seems to have an instinctive dislike for the bishops of Rome, and wherever 
 they are concerned, you may expect from him little accuracy or fairness. 
 Thus he tells us roundly, that Victor, bishop of Rome, towards the 
 close of the* second century, “proceeded to the extent of separating 
 them (the Asiatics) from his communion ; an act,” he continues, “which 
 was disapproved of by St. Irenaeus and the greater part of the Church.” ‘ 
 It is much more probable, to say the least, that Victor merely threatened 
 excommunication, and was dissuaded from carrying his threat into 
 execution, as he had the power to do, by the arguments of St. Irenaeus. 
 It is not true that “ the greater part of the Church disapproved of his 
 conduct.” He was certainly in the right, and the general council of 
 Nice, in 325, which we apprehend represented “the greater part of 
 the Church,” decided that he was right,' and excommunicated all who 
 would thereafter persist in the practice adopted by the Asiatics. ^ 
 
 His account of the controversy between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian, 
 on re-baptizing those baptized by heretics, is yet more glaringly inaccu¬ 
 rate. He tells us, that “ Stephen insisted that the custom of the Roman 
 Church should be adopted, and separated the African churches, on 
 their refusal, from his communion. This act, however, was not 
 approved or recognized by the majority of bishops.” ^ The contrary is 
 the fact. St. Augustine tells us that Cyprian “ continued in the peace 
 of unity with St. Stephen and St. Jerome says the same.^ Their 
 testimony is at least as good as Mr. Palmer’s flippant assertions. And 
 as to the majority of bishops having been opposed to Stephen, it is 
 utterly false, and we challenge proof to the contrary. St. Augustine 
 assures us, in many places of his voluminous writings on the subject, 
 that a “plenary council” decided in favor of Stephen, and that the 
 whole Church agreed with him. At the time of tlie controversy itself, 
 numerous councils were held in various parts of the Church, which 
 approved of the course adopted by the Roman Pontiff*.® 
 
 By the way, it is a singular fact, that, in some way or other, the 
 Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest days of the Church, always triumphed 
 because th^y always happened to be right: and their triumph in the 
 persons of Victor and Stephen is a conclusive proof that the primacy 
 
 IP. 25. 2 See Palma, PrcBlectiones, vol. i, P. 1, p. 2Utj, et stq. for all the documents on this 8 uPj« 3 Cb 
 yP. 26. 4De Baptismo, lib. iy, c. 25—“ Kum in unitatis pace cum eo permausisse.” 
 
 6 Dialog adversus Luciferianos. 6 Palma, vol i, P. I, p. 163, et seq, and p. 142, et seq. 
 
 \ 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 27 
 
 ¥ 
 
 was tlien recognized. Else why would men so holy have ever thought of 
 excommunicating churches in Africa and Asia ? And why did not the 
 Church protest against this usurpation, if it was an usurpation ? In both 
 those controversies, it is remarkable that the opponents of the PontitTs 
 never once thought of questioning their ri^ht oi* poive?' to excommuni¬ 
 cate : tl'.ey merely deprecated its exercise. If Mr. Palmer is so much 
 pleased with the practice of the Asiatics in keeping Easter, why does 
 not his Church now adopt it, instead of the contrary one of Rome ? 
 
 These facts may enable us to judge, what credit is due to the assertion 
 of our historian, that though “ some churches had pre-eminent dis¬ 
 tinction on account of their opulence and magnitude,’^ yet “all bishops 
 and churches, however, were regarded as perfectly equal in the sight 
 of God, (and of men?) and regulated their own affairs, and exercised 
 discipline with perfect freedom.” * The testimony of Iren8eus, and the 
 voice * of all antiquity, trace the pre-eminence of certain churches to 
 other causes altogether, than those carnal-minded ones assigned by Mi. 
 Palmer. They tells us, that the Roman see was the “ chair of Peter 
 that the second in pre-eminence, that of Alexandria, was founded by 
 Peter’s disciple, Mark ; and that the third, Antioch, was Peter’s see, 
 before he removed to Rome. A volume might be filled with testimonies 
 to prove that the Roman Pontiffs held the primacy from the beginning 
 of the Church. Archbishop Kenrick’s triumphant work on the Primacy 
 is a tissue of such authorities. Would not Bishop Whittingham do well 
 to edit this work also “ with notes ?” It is an answer to a publication 
 by one of his own brother bishops, and it yet remains, perhaps for a very 
 obvious reason, unanswered. 
 
 By the by, we have little fault to find with the bishop’s notes under 
 this epoch : but we suppose it is chiefly because he has been very 
 reserved. There is, however, a little note of his on page 23, in which 
 he corrects a true statement of Palmer, who had asserted in the text 
 that “ Irenaeus was crowned witli martyrdom.” The episcopal annotator 
 here remarks : “ so some think, but without sufficient evidence.” We 
 know not what new light has been shed on the bishop’s mind, or what 
 evidence he would deem sufficient. We find the fact stated in every. 
 Church liistorian within our reach, and we know it is the basis of a very 
 old and ireneral Church office. It has ever been the belief of the 
 Church of Lyons, which keeps the feast of the martyr on the 28’th of 
 June. Though it is a matter comparatively unimportant, we are really 
 curious to know what facts can be brought to prove, that Irenseus did not 
 die a martyr under Septimius Severus. 
 
 We might remark on many other inaccuracies under this first epoch ; 
 but the subjects will recur in the sequel, and we must hasten on. We 
 merely pause to notice, in passing, our author’s singular method of 
 accounting for the conversion of the emperor Constantine. He says : 
 
 “ So great was the progress of religion, notwithstanding the violent 
 
 1 w 33. 
 
28 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 
 and cruel persecutions to which it was continually exposed, that it 
 became no less the interest than the duty of the first Christian emperor, 
 Constantine the Great, to relieve the Church fiom persecution, to act as 
 the defender of its faith, and to distinguish its ministers and members 
 by marks of his favor and generosity.” 
 
 We had thought, in our simplicity, that Constantine the Great was 
 actuated b}^ much higher and purer motives tlian interest. We” had read 
 in Eusebius, a cotemporary historian of higli repute, of a magnificent 
 cross which appeared to him at noon-day in .the heavens, bearing the 
 motto: “ fi/ T'ovT'w jitxa” — IN THIS conquer; and that Constantine had 
 made a banner like it, called the Laharum, wliich beckoned him on to 
 victory.* We had read all this ; but we suppose that if Eusebius had 
 chanced to be born in Oxford in these latter days, this and all other 
 heavenly visions would have vanished from his disenchanted eyes ! Well, 
 we admire the march of mind, and the progress of enlightenment! 
 
 Epoch II, A. D. 320—680.^ 
 
 This was, in a more particular manner, the epoch of struggles with, 
 and triumphs over heresy. During this period the Church saw Arian- 
 ism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Pelagianism, and 
 Monothelitism, rise in succession, create great disturbances for a time, 
 and then sink again in the bosom of that darkness from which they had 
 emerged. All of these formidable heresies, except Pelagianism, originated 
 among the subtle and disputatious Greeks of the Eastern churcli. 
 Rome proscribed them all; and tl>en, as ever since, the voice of Rome 
 was re-echoed through the world by the great body of bishops. During 
 this period, as always, the successor of Peter continued to fulfill the 
 divine injunctions: “Feed my lambs ; feed my sheep.” ^ “And thou 
 (Peter) being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The Lord Jesus 
 had “prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail.” ^ And, accord¬ 
 ingly, St. Cyjfl-ian, in the third century, assures us that “heretical per¬ 
 fidy never could have access to the chair of Peter, the principal Church, 
 whence the sacerdotal unity took its rise.** ® All ancient Clmrch History 
 proclaims this remarkable fact, that the Roman Pontiffs, in all the con¬ 
 troversies of those times, were ever in the right in their official capacity. 
 
 It is by some considered as doubtful, whether the story of the fall of 
 Pope Liberius be well founded. If he subscribed any formulary of faith 
 dift’erent from that of Nice, it is certain, that such formulary was not 
 heretical, but merely defective ; and that he was induced to yield thus 
 far, while under restraint, and after his spirit had been broken by a two 
 
 1 See a critical examination of the whole matter in Palma, vol. i, P II, p. 32, et seq. 
 
 2 From p 34—74. 3 St. John, xxi, 15—17. 4 Luke, xxii, 32. 
 
 6 Luke xxii, 32. 6 Epist. Iv, p. 86. 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 ^29 
 
 years’ rigorous confinement. AVhatever he did, he did it in his private 
 capacity alone, and not as the pastor of the universal Church. As soon 
 as he recovered his liberty, it is admitted on all hands, that, he became 
 a most staunch defender of the Church against Arianism * The most 
 ardent advocates of papal prerogative never once dreamed of asserting 
 that the Pope, as a private individual, is either impeccable or infallible. 
 
 The only other Pontiff who has been charged with heresy, with any 
 appearance of plausibility, is Honorius I., who, it iS alleged, was con- 
 aemned as a heretic in the sixth oecumenical council, held in 680, the 
 last year of-the present epoch. Mr. Palmer^ evidently chuckles over 
 the supposed fall of this Pontiff. But it is not even pretended, that 
 Honorius actually defined anything against Catholic faith ; his whole 
 fault, if it was a fault, consisted in enjoining silence on the disputants at 
 the first commencement of the controversy. His epistles to Sergius, 
 bishop of Constantinople, clearly establish this. The wily Greek had 
 misrepresented the real state of the controversy, and had deceived the 
 unsuspecting Pontiff. The result was unfortunate, as the enemies of the 
 faith, among whom Sergius was the chief, carefully availed themselves 
 of the disciplinary injunction of the Pontiff, to spread their heresy in 
 the East. And this reason, no doubt, prompted the council to condemn 
 Honorius, as a favorer of heretics. This council was composed almost 
 entirely of Greek bishops, whose bosoms were already swayed by a 
 rising jealousy of Rome ; which feeling, a little later, led them into open 
 schism : ^ and there is no evidence, that the incidental charo'c ao-ainst 
 
 ^ ' O O 
 
 Honorius was ever approved by the Western Church. 
 
 Our historian thus speaks of the origin of the monastic life: — the 
 Italics are ours. 
 
 “ Many of the most truly pious and holy men whom those ages pro¬ 
 duced, were among those who lived retired from the world, and who 
 were engaged solely in the service of God. A life entirely devoted to 
 religion, and separated from all domestic cares, pleasures, and occupa¬ 
 tions, had been the characteristic of the ascetics and virgins even from 
 the time of the apostles; but the monastic or solitary life was first exhib¬ 
 ited on a broad scale by Anthony and his disciples in Egypt, at the latter 
 end of the third, and the beginning of the fourth century.”'^ 
 
 “In the present age,” he adds, “it is, perhaps, difficult to appreciate 
 justly the religious character of ascetic religion in the early Church.” * 
 This is, alas ! but too true. Protestantism never had any relish for this 
 life of prayer and self-denial; these are not palatable to our modern 
 religionists’ dainty taste. 
 
 The historian’s admission, in regard to the antiquity of the ascetics 
 and sacred virgins, was too much for his Right Reverend editor; who, 
 
 1 For full evidence on this subject, see Palma, vol. i, P. II, p. 94, et seq.^ and p. 103, et seq. 
 
 2 Pag-e 47. 
 
 3 Palma treats the whole subject with his usual learning and ability, vol. ii, P. I, p. 104, et seq, 
 
 4 Page 49. 6 'bid. 
 
 G 2 
 
30 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY 
 
 breathing a more anti-popery atmosphere, is not yet prepared to go as 
 far Romeward, even as Professor Palmer. In a note, he very sagely 
 remarks, that “these (ascetics and virgins) certainly did not exist as 
 distinct classes before the end of the second century; nor even then in 
 anything resembling the form of monkery.” The end of the second 
 century is a very respectable antiquity of itself: but would not the 
 avowed fact of their general existence in the second century, argue a 
 more ancient ori^n ? What would the bishop think of the argument, 
 that because we find mention of the order of bishops in writers of the 
 second century, therefore this order had certainly no previous existence ? 
 Yet his is precisely parallel. 
 
 Both Tertullian ‘ and St. Cyprian^ wrote treatises expressly on the 
 duties of sacred virgins ; which clearly proves their recognized exist¬ 
 ence, as a distinct class in the second and third centuries, and also 
 establishes their prior origin. As to the “ form of monkery,” we will 
 not dispute about forms, so the substance be admitted. In the first 
 century, the Therapeutes of the East were a species of monks ; and the 
 order of sacred virgins existed from the days of the apostles. We read 
 in the Acts, that Philip the Evangelist “had four daughters vii-gins, who 
 did prophesy;” ® and the seventh chapter of St. Paul’s first Epistle to 
 the Corinthians clearly implies the apostolical origin of holy virgins and 
 colibataries. Carnal-minded Protestantism can not understand or appre¬ 
 ciate all this. In our modern systems of religion, matrimony seems to 
 constitute the summum honum, and virginity is almost as much despised 
 as it was among the heathens of old ! Who will venture to deny this ? 
 
 Among the many important omissions of our author under this epoch, 
 we have time to mention only one. He says nothing of the attempt 
 made by Julian, the apostate, to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, with 
 the avowed purpose of falsifying the predictions of Christ'; nor of the 
 miraculous manner in which that attempt was frustrated by God. Yet 
 this is perhaps one of the most triumphant proofs of the divinity of the 
 Christian Religion, and it should not therefore have been omitted, even 
 in a compendious history. The fact is testified to^ by all Cliristian 
 antiquity; and it is vouched for even by the cotemporary pagan 
 historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, a great admirer of Julian. 
 
 The errors and misstatements of our author and of his editor are here 
 so numerous, that we scarcely have space to advert even transiemly to 
 the principal of them. On pages 43, 44, we have no less than three notes, 
 in which Bishop Whittingham corrects true statements made in the text. 
 Mr. Palmer calls Nestorius “a vain and arrogant man,” and gives a 
 correct account of his heresy. The episcopal commentator here remarks: 
 “Nestorius hardly has justice done him by this statement . . . tlie most 
 accurate investigations leave little room for doubt, that he did not teach 
 the heretical doctrine afterwards put forth by some who took part in the 
 
 1 De Velandis Virginibus. 
 3 Acts, xxi, 9. 
 
 2 De Virginibus 
 
 4 Apud Palma, vol i, P. II, p. 23, et seq. 
 
THE EARLY AGES 
 
 31 
 
 dispute, and bore his name.” Ah indeed ! So the Protestant bishop of 
 Maryland has, “ by his more accurate investigations,” ascertained more 
 than had been found out by the two hundred bishops who composed the 
 council of Ephesus, and by nearly all the historians of antiquity ! We 
 give him credit for his wonderful discovery; but until he gives us some 
 facts on the subject, we must be pardoned for believing that Nestorius 
 was a heretic.* 
 
 The second correction to which we just alluded, is the substitution in 
 the note of the word testimony, for that of the decision of the council of 
 Ephesus against Nestorius. The bishop is evidently alarmed at the 
 spectre of church authority deciding on controversy. Feeling that his 
 own church is powerless, even to silence a recreant parson, he would fain 
 snatch from the ancient Church also her spiritual armor of authoritative 
 teaching. 
 
 The third correction contains a libel on St. Cyril of Alexandria, who, 
 in the text, had been praised as having had “ the honor of being the 
 principal opponent of this heresy” (the Nestorian). The editor adds: 
 “but not without sullying himself with the use of very unbefitting 
 means.” Here also he flatly contradicts all Christian antiquity. 
 
 Again, the historian speaks of St. Patrick and St. Palladius, the 
 respective apostles of Ireland and Scotland, though singularly enough he 
 makes them both the apostles of Ireland ; and we are sure the Irish will 
 thank him for the discovery ! 
 
 “ The apostolical labors of St. Patrick were rewarded by the conversion 
 of the Irish nation to Christianity. Palladius had been previously or¬ 
 dained to the same mission by Coelestinus, bishop of Rome,” <fec.^ 
 
 Not at all, says the episcopal editor : 
 
 “ This is extremely doubtful, or rather almost certainly untrue. That 
 both Palladius and Patrick preached in Ireland, early in the fifth century, 
 is certain.” 
 
 If Palladius visited Ireland, he remained but a short time.^ But the 
 bisliop further observes: 
 
 “ That neither of them had any direct communication with Rome is in 
 the highest degree probable.” 
 
 And yet St. Prosper, a cotemporary historian, testifies in his chronicle, 
 that Palladius was ordained by Pope Coelestine for the Scotch."* Which 
 are we to believe? All the ancient authors of St. Patrick’s life ao-ree in 
 
 O 
 
 stating, that after his second captivity, he traveled through France and 
 
 1 Another instance of the sympathy of errorists for one another, is furnished by the great parade 
 lately made over a Nestorian bishop, whom the Rev. Justus Perkins brought to this country as a 
 kind of show ! 2 P. 45. 
 
 3 We are aware that the words Scoti and Hiherni were interchangeable terms for several centuries: 
 yet St Patrick, in his confessions, clearly distinguishes between them, and so do other ancient 
 documents. The learned Alban Butler thinks that the Scots first settled in Ireland, and then 
 removed to Scotland. See Butler's lives of Saints, 17th March, note. Dublin edition. 
 
 4 ‘-Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Coelestino Palladius, et primus episcopufl 
 mittitur.” — Chrontcon. ad annum 431. The Chronicle begins with Adam, and comes down to the 
 ) ear 455. and it is very good authority, especially against a mere assertion. 
 
82 
 
 C II U 11 C II II I S T U 11 Y . 
 
 Italy, visited Rome, and received his mission, together with the apostolical 
 benediction, from Pope Coelestine, who died A. D. 432.‘ 
 
 Speaking of the ancient British and Irish churches, Mr. Palmer makes 
 this reckless assertion : 
 
 The ancient churches of the Britons which, still contirtued, as well as 
 the Irish churches, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the bishops of 
 Rome, nor was the Anglo-Saxon Church for many centuries, though 
 much reverence was felt for the ancient and celebrated Church of 
 Rome, and much assistance derived from it in the earlier stages of their 
 existence.”^ 
 
 And again : 
 
 “ The ancient British and Irish churches, in the sixth and seventh 
 centuries, were treated as schismatics by the Roman church in conse¬ 
 quence of their adherence to their ancient customs, and for not sub¬ 
 mitting to the authority of the papal see ; but they were acknowledged as 
 Christians by many churches.”^ 
 
 And to make bad worse, the bishop of Maryland adds this note about 
 the “ancient customs : ” 
 
 “For which they truly pleaded apostolical warrant, in the practice of 
 St. John, derived to them through the churches o^f Gaul.” 
 
 It would require too much space to refute all the misstatements 
 contained in these remarkable passages, which are selected almost at 
 random, from many more of a similar kind. We will barel}'' enumerate 
 them, and say a word or tAvo on each. 
 
 1. The ancient British and Irish churches were subject to the jurisdic¬ 
 tion of the Roman pontiffs, as a host of facts clearly show; and we 
 
 'challenge proof to the contrary. In both, Christianity and its first 
 teachers had come from Rome. At the close of the second century. Pope 
 Eleutherius (about 180) had sent to England Fugatius and Damianus, at 
 the instance of King .Lucius. This is attested by all the older British 
 writers.Whether, previously to this time, the gospel was preached, 
 at least to any extent, in England or not, is doubtful; but if it was, it 
 had made but few disciples.* But for Rome, England would perhaps 
 never have been converted. Besides, the primacy apart, England was in 
 the western patriarchate, and under this title, like the other western 
 churches, was subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs, who 
 were also avowedly patriarchs of the west. 
 
 2. That the Irish churches were ever treated as schismatical by Rome, 
 is an assertion unsustained by proof. The Irish church was never for 
 a moment stained with either heresy or schism. 
 
 1 So says Probug, who wrote a life of the saint, according to Bollandus, some time in the seventh 
 century. The Cistercian monk, Jocelin, who also wrote his life in the twelfth century, and who 
 refers to four different lives of the saint written before his time, relates the same fact. See Butler’s 
 Lives of Saints, 17th March, Dublin edition. Surely all this testimony should outweigh the bare 
 assertion of Bishop Whittinghain. 2 P. 46. 3 P 67. 
 
 4 For facts see Lingard — “ Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon church,” p. 18, American edition. 
 
 5 Idem, p. 17, note. 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 33 
 
 3. The British clmrclies never refused to admit the authority of the 
 papal see. The controversy did not turn on this point. They merely 
 refused to submit to St. Augustine, because he could not sanction their 
 customs, and would not brook their notorious immorality, attested by all 
 cotemporary writers. The testimony of Gildas, an historian of the time, 
 clearly proves that they acknowledged the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, 
 even after that authority had proscribed them : for their clergy still went 
 to Rome to obtain ecclesiastical preferment.’ 
 
 4. The British churches did not truly plead apostolical warrant for 
 their customs,” as Bishop Whittingham says ; nor did they plead itat all. 
 They merely alleged the example of St. Columban and of their fore¬ 
 fathers. St. John and the churches of Gaul had nothing to do with 
 the controversy. It is ascertained that the British churches were not 
 quartodecimans, or did not persist in keeping Easter with the Jews. They 
 merely refused to adopt the improvement in the calendar introduced by 
 Dionysius Exiguus, and already adopted by Rome and the whole Church. 
 The venerable Bede tells us, that their remoteness from the rest of the 
 world was the reason of their ignorant adherence to an erroneous cal¬ 
 endar.^ By the way, as Bishop Whittingham so greatly admires those 
 ** ancient customs,” why does he not adopt them, and shave his own 
 head in the form of a crescent ? In this strange plight, and keeping 
 Easter about a month sooner or later than his brethren, he would certainly 
 excite admiration ! He would be a glorious reformer, “/rwZy pleading 
 apostolical warrant!” 
 
 5. We would much like to see any evidence going to prove, that after 
 their separation from Rome, ” the British churches were acknowledged 
 as Christians by many churches.” We doubt whether there is one fact 
 in history to warrant this assertion. 
 
 6. That the Anglo-Saxon church acknowledged the jurisdiction of the 
 Roman Pontiffs, from the time of St. Augustine to the reformation, could 
 be proved by a whole volume of evidence. But our space will not allow 
 us even to touch on this subject.^ 
 
 Professor Palmer gives us some very fine sketches of St. Anthony, of 
 St. Pachomius, of St. Martin, and of many other principal saints and 
 illustrious ornaments of this period.** They are judicious, well selected, 
 and edifying ; written too in the right spirit. Ho even speaks with great 
 praise of that remarkable man, St. Simeon Stylites,® who passed many 
 years of his life on the top of a column, in order to escape the impor¬ 
 tunity of the multitudes who flocked to him for his blessing. He tells 
 us how this holy man was venerated by emperors, empresses, and bishops; 
 and how he converted thousand of pagans to the Christian faith. He gives 
 this opinion of his character : 
 
 1 This whole subject is ably handled by Lingard. Ibid. p. 41, et seq. 
 
 2 “ Utpote qui longe extra orbem positis nemo synodalia Paschalis observantiae decreta porrexe- 
 rat.” — lib. iii, c. 4. 
 
 8 For facts and authorities on this interesting subject, we refer the reader to Dr. Kenrick on the 
 Primacy Part I, ch. xvi; al.so to the late eloquent work of Dr. Ives — ‘‘ Trials of a mind,” &c. 
 
 4 P. 44, ft. seq. 6 P. 65, 56. 
 
 6 
 
34 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 “An example of want of moderation in self-denial and mortification 
 is frequently pointed out in the case of St. Simeon Stylites, who lived in 
 the fifth century. Yet it is impossible not to admit that, with some 
 excesses in these respects, there was much to admire and venerate in his 
 character.” ‘ 
 
 This eulogy did not suit the taste of the Episcopal editor. He says, 
 in a note : 
 
 “The excesses of Simeon were more reprehensible than mere ‘want 
 of moderation in self-denial and mortification.’ His multiplied bowings, 
 protracted watchings, constrained postures, and pillar-isolation, belong 
 to a low class of superstition, and furnish a melancholy proof of the 
 degenerating tendencies of the age.” 
 
 The Protestant bishop is far too enlightened to relish these same 
 “multiplied bowings and protracted watchings;” as to the “constrained 
 postures,” his very soul abhors them. Only think of the “degenerating 
 tendencies of the age !” Rank popery perched on a pillar, surrounded 
 by admiring thousands, in the middle of the fifth century ! It is really 
 too bad ! It is absolutely shocking to the nerves of a delicate Protestant 
 bishop, even to think of those austerities ! To be more serious : the 
 example of St. Simeon is extraordinary, and almost single in Churcli 
 * History. It belongs to the class of things admirable, but not imitable. 
 In those warm Eastern climates, it was not unusual, at that day, for 
 persons to pass considerable portions of their lives in the open air, or on 
 the terraces of their houses. The manner of life of St. Simeon was, 
 then, after all, not so very great a departure from the usage of his time 
 and country, as might appear at first sight. We make these remarks, 
 merely to steady the bishop’s nerves. 
 
 Dr. Palmer devotes an entire chapter^ to what he styles “the rise 
 of abuses and corruptions.” This chapter is a tissue of unfounded 
 assertion and of special pleading, from beginning to end. It is bad 
 enough already; and hence the bishop makes no notes. It would far 
 transcend our limits to enter into a detailed refutation of its glaring 
 perversion of facts and evidence. On one page alone, we have marked 
 no le^s than four false statements, for the refutation of each of which, 
 however, a separate paper would be necessary. We will offer only a 
 few general remarks. 
 
 The gist of the reasoning consists in the assertion, that many doctrines, 
 — invocation of saints, veneration for relics, purgatory, and others,— 
 led to great abuses ; and in the inference thence drawn, that they were, 
 therefore, rightly repudiated by Protestants. The things were good in 
 their origin and harmless in themselves ; they were subsequently abused ; 
 therefore, they were justly abolished. Under this leveling reasoning, 
 everything in Christianity, and the bible itself would be swept away. 
 He says: 
 
 “ Could the pious fathers of the fourth century, who in their orations 
 
 1 P . 55. 
 
 2 Chap. X. p. 68, et seq. 
 
THE EARLY AGES. 
 
 35 
 
 apostrophized the departed saints and martyrs, ‘and called for their 
 prayers to God, have foreseen the abuses to which this practice was to 
 lead, . . . they would carefull}'- have avoided the introduction of 
 
 a practice so dangerous to true religion.” • 
 
 Could they now rise from their graves, how they would rebuke 
 those, who, under pretence of promoting true religion, have mutilated or 
 rejected the practices which they so much cherished ! How they would 
 be charmed too with the motley appearance of modern Protestantism ! 
 According to our Oxford divine, even the Church, sustained, as he 
 delights to repeat it was, by the promises of Christ, was yet wanting 
 in knowledge on this subject: 
 
 “ The Church has not always been gifted with a spirit of wisdom and 
 foreknowledge, to discern the future abuses of opinions and practices, 
 which it originally permitted without reproof.” ‘ 
 
 For our parts, we greatly prefer the wisdom of the Church, which 
 Christ promised to protect from error, and which he commanded us to 
 hear, to the new,-fangled and mystical notions of Oxford. It may be 
 childish simplicity in us ; but if we err in hearing the Church, we err by 
 the express command of Christ! 
 
 Professor Palmer will not admit, that either the seventh or the 
 eighth council was cecumenical, or general. The former condemned the 
 Iconoclasts, and maintained the lawfulness of images in churches; the 
 latter condemned the intruder Photius, that ambitious man who had been 
 consecrated bishop of Constantinople in six days from being a mere 
 layman, while St. Ignatius, the lawful bishop, was still living. He tells 
 us, that the former was rejected by the Western, and the latter by the 
 Eastern church.^ Neither of these* assertions is true, as we could easily 
 accumulate evidence to prove, did our limits permit. The Roman 
 Pontiffs certainly sanctioned the canons of the seventh council, or the 
 secpnd of Nice, held in 787. And with them the bulk of the Western 
 bishops certainly agreed, at least after a brief hesitancy. The fathers 
 of the council at Frankfort, in 791, merely labored under an error of 
 fact, founded on a false version of the Nicene canons : this error was 
 subsequently removed, and the Western bishops then gave in their 
 adhesion. 
 
 What the bishops of the Greek church may have thought on the 
 subject after their final rupture with Rome under Michael Cerularius, is 
 not important: but during the two centuries intervening between the 
 liolding of the eighth general council and this final schism, they had 
 certainly, at least a majority of them, received its decisions.^ There is, 
 in a word, as much evidence to prove that these councils are oecumeni¬ 
 cal, as there is to prove the same of the six preceding ones, which our 
 
 1 Pages 68. 69. • 2 Page 47. 
 
 3 See Palma, toI. ii, part ii, p. 15, et seq., and p. 26, et seq , and ibid, p. 89, et seq.^ and p. 114, tt 
 »eg., for full proofs on the subject of the seventh and eighth general councils. 
 
 4 
 
36 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 author receives. Objections had been made to all of them for a time ; 
 but they were all finally sanctioned by the body of bishops. 
 
 We have now finished our remarks on this epoch ; and witli them we 
 also close this paper. We. have not noticed one-half the passages we 
 had marked for animadversion ; but the few specimens we have been 
 able to give will serve to show the general character for accuracy of Mr. 
 Palmer’s work, as also that of its Right Reverend editor. Our readers 
 will probably concur with us in opinion, that Bishop Whittingham might 
 have been much better employed, than in writing notes on Palmer’s 
 (J!hurch History. He might, for instance, have devoted his leisure 
 moments to an answer to Archbishop Kenrick’s book on the Primacy. 
 
II. 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY.’*' 
 
 ARTICLE II.-THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 A diflfereot Division suggested — Triumphs of the Church over Barbarism — Missionaries sent bf 
 Rome — The Ages of Faith — Auricular Confession — Testimonies of Tertulliau and St. Cyprian 
 — Nectarius and the Penitentiary — Puseyite View of the Holy Eucharist—Paschasius Radbert 
 and Berengarius — Temporal Authority of the Pope and Bishops — Decretals of Isidore — Prerog¬ 
 atives of the Roman Pontiffs — Pope Julius I. — Greek Schism — Order of Pre-eminence — Michael 
 Cerularius — Shaving the Beard — The Nicene Canons —Edifying Incident of St. Anselm —Modern 
 Anglican Parsons — Vision of “ Roman attempts at Usurpation” — Have the Promises of Christ 
 failed ? — The Roman Primacy acknowledged by the early Greek Church — And at Councils of Lyons 
 and Florence — When was the Doctrine of the Primacy Defined? — Purgatory — Transubstan- 
 tiation — Indulgences—Protestant Indulgences — Penitential Works — Repudiating the Debt — 
 The Rosary — “The Pure and Holy One” — Temporal power of the Popes — Its intluence on 
 Civilization. 
 
 In our first paper, we extended our review of Mr. Palmer’s work to 
 the beginning of the third epoch of Church History, according to his 
 division. In the present, we intend to offer some remarks upon the third 
 and fourth epochs, which bring the history down to the reformation. 
 To the period which has elapsed since this eventful revolution, we will 
 have to devote a separate paper, which will be the last of this series. ' 
 
 We have already intimated that we did not approve of the idea of our 
 author, which makes the year 680, — the date of the seventh general 
 council, against the Monothelites,—a distinct era in Church History, on 
 the ground that this was the last general council. We have briefly shown 
 how unfounded is this apumption. We would have greatly preferred 
 a less whimsical, and more rational division, and one, at the same time, 
 more conformable to the great vicissitudes of ecclesiastical history. We 
 would have divided the period which elapsed from the accession of Con¬ 
 stantine the Great, as sole emperor, in the year 324, to the reformation 
 in 1517, into four, instead of three epochs. 
 
 The first would have terminated with the fall of the Roman empire in 
 the west, in the year 476,—an event of sufficient importance, surely, 
 both in general and ecclesiastical history, to form a distinct epoch. Tliis 
 period, embracing one hundred and fifty-two years, witnessed the rise, 
 progress, and condemnation of the four great heresies against the doctrines 
 of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation ; as well as the holding of tlie 
 first four general councils, which St. Gregory 1. and the ancient fathers 
 
 * A Compendious Ecclesiastical History^ from the earliest period to the present tune. Bv 
 thu Rev. William Palmer, M. A., of Worcester Collej,^*, Oxford. With a Preface and 
 Notes, by an American Editor. New York, 1811, republished. 1 vol. l2mo. pp.228. 
 
 H 37 
 
 
38 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 revered as they did the four gospels. The second epoch would have 
 closed with the crowning of Charlemagne, in the beginning of the ninth 
 century, and it would have traced the first great struggle of the Church 
 with barbarism, and her first successful efforts for the conversion of the 
 northern nations. The third epoch would have closed with the consum¬ 
 mation of the Greek schism under Michael Cerularius, in 1054 ; and it 
 would have unfolded the triumphant termination of the struggles and 
 efforts just alluded to. Finally, the fourth epoch would have terminated 
 with the reformaiion ; and it would have coincided with that of our 
 author. This division seems to us more in conformity with the great 
 phases of Church History. We will, however, continue our remarks on 
 the division into epochs adopted by our Oxford historian. 
 
 EPOCH III, A. D ,680—1054.* 
 
 This was, in a special manner, the period of the triumph of the Church 
 over barbarism, in the conversion of the northern nations. Mr. Palmer 
 gives us^ a very brief and imperfect summary of facts on this subject; 
 but he. almost forgets to inform us, that the credit of those glorious triumphs 
 is mainly due to the Roman Pontiffs. He merely tells us incidentally, 
 that “ at length Boniface went to Rome, by desire of Pope Gregory II., 
 who ordained him bishop for the mission among the heathens east of the 
 Rhine.He might have told us the same of all the great apostles of 
 the north, who were either sent directly by Rome, or who at least 
 undertook their apostolical labors with the approval of the Roman Pontiffs. 
 Even M. D’Aubignb, the unscrupulous Protestant historian of the refor¬ 
 mation, admits as much. He informs us, that “ the Germans had received 
 from Rome that element of modern civilization, the faith. Instruction, 
 legislation; all, save their courage and their weapons, had come to them 
 from the sacerdotal city. Strong ties had, from that time, attached 
 Germany to the papacy. 
 
 We shall soon have occasion to see, in what language our author 
 speaks of the abuses and corruptions of this period, in doing which he 
 but re-echoes the stereotyped charges of prejudiced and partisan histo¬ 
 rians. As an offset to these accusations, and at the same time as a 
 specimen of the admirable consistency of Puseyism, we wilV first give 
 some of his admissions on the faith and piety of those much abused 
 ages. In regard to the faith then prevalent he speaks thus : 
 
 “The same great truths of religion were universally adopted; the 
 oame Scriptures were diligently studied by all whoAiad the means of 
 doing so, — for in those days, before the invention of printing, when all 
 books were transcribed by manual labor, they were both scarce and 
 
 • \ 
 
 1 From p. 76 — 106. 2 P. 75, et. seq. , 3 p. 89. 
 
 4 '• History of the Great Reformation,” &c., in three Toliimcs, 12mo. vol. 1, pp. 78, 79. Edit 
 Carter, New York, 1843 > ee , 
 
 k 
 
THE MIHHLE AGES. 
 
 39 
 
 expensive ; and an universal appeal was made to the sentiments of the 
 ancient fathers and councils in the interpretation of the Bible.”' 
 
 In the very chapter in which lie treats of the “abuses and supersti¬ 
 tions” of the period under consideration, he has the following admission 
 in regard to the state of religion at that time : 
 
 “ And if, as .we have reason to believe, a large portion of the community 
 were [was?) accustomed to receive the holy eucharist three times a year, 
 we may trust that the state of religion was in those ages not so bad 
 as it has been sometimes represented; and the present age, with all its 
 advantages of civilization, peace, and education, would perhaps scarcely 
 be able to prove its greater attention to known duties, or its more con¬ 
 scientious obedience to the impulse of conscience.”^ 
 
 From the following extract it would clearly appear, that, even in his 
 opinion, those ages of faith were far ahead of the present enlightened 
 times in piety and devotion :— 
 
 “■ Nor has there ever been a period in the history of the Church, when 
 the spirit of religion, where it existed, was more ardent and earnest. 
 The religion of those times was less learned, less accomplished (!) less 
 free from superstition (1), than that of earlier ages; but it can scarcely 
 be said to have been less zealous, less productive of good works. Its 
 characteristics were the deepest humility, renouncement of self, denial 
 of the passions and even of the enjoyments and pleasures of the world; 
 boundless charity to the poor; the foundation of churches, schools, and 
 religious houses; diligent study of the Scriptures, singing of psalms, 
 and much prayer. We see not merely one or two, but hundreds of men 
 forsaking all their earthly prospects, the resorts of their youth, and the 
 paths of ambition, to devote themselves to the conversion of the heathen. 
 We see them desiring and rejoicing to die for Christ; and, by their 
 patience, piety, and wisdom, bringing multitudes of heathens into the 
 way of salvation. We see many of the most powerful monarchs engaged 
 in all the exercises of continual devotion and charity, or descending from 
 the summit of earthly grandeur to spend the remainder of their days in 
 penitence and prayer. However sad may have been the calamities of the 
 Church, and however great the faults of Christians, yet when we see 
 such things as these, we aannot refrain from the conviction that the Spirit 
 of God was still influencing the hearts of many people ; nor fail to per¬ 
 ceive that the Lord was still, according to his promise, always with his 
 Church.”' 
 
 The tree which produced such fruits as these must have been good, 
 according to the rule of our Lord : “ By their fruits ye shall know them.” 
 
 Our historian confirms the truth of this admirable picture, by appro¬ 
 priate and well written sketches of the lives of many illustrious men who 
 flourished during the period in question : of the Venerable Bede, of 
 Charlemagne, of St. Boniface, of the martyrs of Amorium at Bagdat, of 
 Alfred the Great, and of the anchorite, St. Nilus.'' These examples are 
 so well exhibited, that we are resti-ained only by our narrow limits from 
 making our readers sharers in the unmingled pleasure we had in perusing 
 them. 
 
 All that surprises us, is, that the Protestant bishop of Maryland did 
 
 1 Page 78. 2 Page 101. 3 Page 85 4 Pp 85—100. 
 
40 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 not endeavor to mar the beauty of tliese sketches by the introduction of 
 a few of his little notes ! Perhaps the good bishop deemed this a work 
 of supererogation, since Mr. Palmer, here as elsewhere, takes special 
 pains to spoil his own work. He seizes the brush, and recklessly bedaubs 
 his own picture, until scarcely a lineament of its former beauty remains. 
 
 Confession was one of the cherished practices of medieval piety. It 
 was this great act of self denial which prepared the sainted men and 
 women of that period for the heroic sacrifices which excite the admira¬ 
 tion of our historian ; — sacrifices to which, by the way, cold and lifeless 
 Protestantism can offer no parallel. Let us see how our Oxfordite 
 discourses on this subject: 
 
 “ During these ages, the practice of private confession to a priest was 
 not held generally to be a matter of necessity. We have already seen 
 this custom abolished (as a pre-requisite to the reception of the 
 Eucharist) in the east, by Nectarius, patriarch of Constantinople, in 
 the fourth century, and by the majority of the eastern church. It was 
 still practiced in many parts of the west, but was not regarded as an 
 essential of . religion. Bede and Alcuin recommended Christians to 
 confess to the ministers of Cod all the grievous sins which they could 
 remember. But others, as we learn from Alcuin and Haymo, would 
 not confess their sins to the priest,” &c.‘ 
 
 We would ask, do Protestant preachers now-a-days, with Bede and 
 Alcuin, recommend Christians to confess to the ministers of God all 
 the grievous sins which they can remember ? ” Or rather, do they not 
 inveigh, in season and out of season, against this whole practice of 
 confession, as popish and encouraging sin ? Do not the parsons of the 
 church of England also join in the general outcry, although their own 
 Prayer Book, in the order for the visitation of the sick, strongly 
 recommends the practice ? ^ Do they not rather belong to that class of 
 negligent Christians, whom Alcuin and Haymo reproached, because 
 “ they would not confess their sins to the priest?” Catholic priests, at the 
 present day, often feel it to be their duty to niake a similar reproach to 
 negligent Catholics, which fact, instead of disproving the general belief 
 in the obligation of confession among them, on the contrary, clearly 
 establishes its recognized existence. 
 
 The whole statement just given, is, in fact, untrue and unfair from 
 beginning to end. 
 
 1. It is not true, that “during these ages, the practice of private 
 confession to a priest was not held generally to be a matter of necessity.” 
 It would be very easy to accumulate proof to establish the fact, that, 
 from the very beginning of the Church, the obligation of confession to a 
 priesl was generally recognized among Christians. The most ancient 
 fathers, both Greek and Latin, bear unequivocal testimony, not only to 
 the fact that confession was generally practiced in the ages in which they 
 
 1 P. 81. 
 
 2 Tliis part of the Prayer Book has been expunged from the American editions. It was toopopish 
 to suic this latitude! 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 41 
 
 severally wrote, but also as to the other more important one, that its 
 obligation was generally believed and felt. These two facts are indeed 
 intimately connected with each other; for it would have been utterly 
 impossible to induce men generally to adopt so painful an observance, 
 unless they had been previously convinced of its obligation and necessity. 
 
 Out of a host of evidence bearing on the subject, our space will allow 
 us to refer only to the testimony of Tertullian and of St. Cyprian, who 
 wrote in the second and third centuries. Both of these fathers aoree 
 
 O 
 
 with all the others who have written on the subject, in enforcing the 
 obligation of exomologesis, or confession to a priest. Tertullian says of 
 confession: 
 
 “ Wherefore confession, {^exomologesis^ ) is a discipline for the abasement 
 and humiliation of man, enjoining such conversation as invites mercy : 
 it directs, also, even in the manner of dress and food — to lie in sack¬ 
 cloth and ashes, to hide the body in mean garments, to cast down the 
 spirit with mourning, to exchange for severe treatment the sins which he 
 has committed ; to fall down before the priests and to kneel before the beloved 
 of God? All these things does exomologesis (confession) perform, that it 
 may commend repentance ; that by fearing danger it may honor God; 
 that by itself pronouncing judgment on the sinner, it may act in the 
 stead of God’s wrath ; and that, by means of temporal affliction, it may, 
 1 will not say frustrate, but clear off the eternal penalties.” 
 
 Speaking of those who defer confession through shame, he says: 
 
 They “ are more mindful of their shame than of their salvation, like those 
 who, having contracted some shameful malady, avoid making their physi¬ 
 cians acquainted with it, and so perish with their bashfulness. It is, 
 forsooth, intolerable to modesty, to make satisfaction to their offended 
 Lord! To be restored to the health which they have wasted away ! 
 Brave art thou, in thy modesty, truly, bearing an open front in sinning, 
 and a bashful one in praying for pardon ! . . . Verily, the concealment 
 of a sin, promises a great benefit to our modesty ! Namely, that if we 
 withdraw any thing from the knowledge of men, we shall also, of course, 
 conceal it from God ! And is it thus, then, tliat the tlioughts of men 
 and the knowledge of God are compared ? Is it better to be damned in 
 secret, than to be absolved openly ? 
 
 To extinguish this false shame and encourage the sinner to make his 
 confession, he alleges the following strong motive ; — which clearly proves 
 the belief universally prevalent in the second century, that confession of 
 grievous sin was necessary, and of Divine obligation: 
 
 “If thou drawest back from confession [exomologesis), consider in 
 thy heart that hell-fire which confession shall quench for thee;'* and first 
 imagine to thyself the greatness of this punishment, that thou mayest not 
 doubt concerning the adoption of the remedy. . . When, therefore, thou 
 knowest that against hell-fire, after that first protection of the baptism 
 ordained by the Lord, there is yet in confession [exomologesis) a second 
 
 1 The Greek word for coTifession, often used b 3 '^ the early fathers. 
 
 2 Presby teris advolvi, et carls Dei adgeniculari. For caris — beloved, some editions read am — altars. 
 
 3 An meliusest damnatuin latere quam palam ahsolvi? 
 
 4 Quam tibi e.xomologesis extinguet.. 
 
 H2 
 
42 
 
 CHURCH HISTCRY. 
 
 aid, why dost thou abandon thy salvation ? Why delay to enter on that, 
 which thou knowest will heal thee ? 
 
 St. Cyprian writes not less clearly of the faith and practice of Christians 
 on this subject, in the third century: 
 
 “ None can escape the eye of God. He sees the heart and breast of 
 every person ; and He will judge, not only our actions, but also our 
 words and thoughts. He regards the minds of all, and the wishes con¬ 
 cealed even in the hidden recesses of the breast. In line, how much 
 loftier in faith, and superior in the fear (of God) are those wlio, though 
 implicated in no crime of sacrifice, or of accepting a certificate, yet, 
 because they have only had the thought thereof, this very thing sorrowingly 
 and honestly confessing before the priests oj God, make a. confession (exo- 
 mologesis) of their conscience, expose the burden of the soul, seek out a 
 salutary cure even for light and little wounds, knowing that it is written, 
 
 God will not be mocked. ... I beseech you, most dear brethren, let 
 each confess his sin, whilst he that has sinned is yet among the living; 
 while his confession can be admitted ; while the satisfaction and the 
 remission, made through the priests, are pleasing before the Lord.’'^ 
 
 Many similar passages from the writings of these two and of other 
 fathers might be alleged ; but these will suffice to show that, even from 
 the very earliest period, the obligation of confession to a priest was 
 generally recognized. And it is not to be supposed, that this obligation 
 was less sensibly or extensively felt during ages which, Mr. Palmer himself 
 assures us, constantly “appealed to the sentiments of the ancient fathers 
 and councils in the interpretation of the Bible. 
 
 2. Nor is it at all true that “this custom was abolished in the east by 
 Nectarius, patriarch of Constantinople, in the fourth century, and by the 
 majority of the eastern church.”'* This is a most glaring perversion of 
 history. Nectarius never even dreamed of abolishing confession 
 
 to a priest; nor did the majority of the eastern church ever think of any 
 such thino'. Such confession continued to be general thi-oughout the 
 Greek church after the death of Nectarius, as we learn from his successor, 
 St. Chrysostom, (A. D. 397), and from all the historians of that period. 
 This is altogether certain from incontestable evidence, which we could 
 easily accumulate ; and Mr. Palmer should be ashamed to assert the 
 contrary.® Both the historians, Sozomenus and Socrates,® who relate the 
 fact of Nectarius, plainly bear us out in our assertion. 
 
 The former introduces his account of the affair in the following words *, 
 “As to avoid all sin is more than human nature can do ; and God has 
 commanded pardon to be granted to those that repent, though they have 
 often sinned ; and as, in begging pardon, it is necessary that sin should he 
 at the same time confessed, it, from the beginning, deservedly seemed to the 
 priests a heavy burden, that sinners should proclaim their sins, as in a 
 
 1 De I'oeiiitentia, n. 8 — 12. 
 
 2 Coiifiteantur sing-uli delictum suum, dumadhuc qui deliquit in Ra?culo est dum admitti confessio 
 ejus potest, dum satisfactio et remissio facta per sacerdotes apud Doiniiiuin grata est.— De Lapsis 
 
 3 I’ 78, sup. citat. 
 
 4. Mr. Palmer had as.serted the same thing more in detail on pages 32, 33. 
 
 5 See *■ Faith of Catholics,” vol. Ill, p. 28, et. seq , and Catholic theologians, passim. 
 
 6 They wrote in the fifth century, and continued the Church History of Eusebius. 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 43 
 
 theatre, in the presence of all the multitude.”* He then goes on to state 
 how, some time in the third century, a public penitentiary was appointed 
 to receive the confession, and to enjoin suitable public penance ; and how, 
 from a great scandal which occurred in the church of Constantinople, 
 Ncctarius was induced, by the popular clamor and indignation, to suppress 
 this office of penitentiary. This functionary presided over the disiribu- 
 tion of 'public penances, and was a kind of censor morum His office 
 once suppressed, things returned to their usual course, and Christians 
 still believed, as the historian who wrote after the event, assures us, that 
 “ it was necessary that sin should be confessed.” By the act of Nec- 
 tarius, the office of public penitentiary alone was abolished, and with it 
 the discipline of public confession, “ as in a theatre,” was done away 
 with ; but the obligation of private confession was still generally felt and 
 acted on. You might as well argue from the breaking of an unworthy 
 magistrate or judge, that the whole administration of justice was abol¬ 
 ished, as to argue the general suppression of confession from this fact of 
 Nectarius. 
 
 Socrates relates the whole occurrence in almost the same manner ; 
 and he unites with Sozomenus in expressing his decided disapproval of 
 the conduct of Nectarius^. What both historians add, that after this 
 suppression of the penitentiary, Christians in the east “were permitted 
 to confess their sins to a priest, before communion, as their own judgment 
 might direct them,” besides that it had, as they both explicitly avow, no 
 relation whatever to the western churches, could only be meant to imply 
 that public confession to the penitentiary^ was no longer enjoined in the 
 east.* 
 
 Mr. Palmer is heartily welcome to all the benefit, he or his admirers 
 may be able to derive from these stubborn facts. His version of the 
 matter is the same old stale and liackneyed charge, which had been 
 already repeated and refuted a hundred times; and which, in spite of all 
 evidence to the contrary, will perhaps still be repeated to the end of time 
 by prejudiced smatterers, who may write what they will call history. 
 
 It is really curious to see how our author applies his strange Oxford 
 theory in regard to the holy Eucharist, to the facts of Church History, 
 during the period in question. If any one can clearly understand his 
 real opinion on the subject, he must have clearer optics than ourselves, 
 even with the aid of our Roman glasses ; and Bishop Whittingham, as 
 we shall see, only makes confusion worse confounded. Neither of them 
 seems either to admit or to deny the real presence ; they both halt 
 somewhere between these two things ; but whether they hold to the absurd 
 system of Lutheran'" consubstantiation, or to the wholly unintelligible 
 opinion of Calvin of a real figurative presence; or whether they have 
 
 1 Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. vii. cap. xvi. , 
 
 . 2 Historias Kcclesia-sticae, lib. v. cap. xix For all the facts and evidence on the subject see Palma 
 Prce.lectiones, vol. i, part ii, p. 141, et. seq. 
 
 3 See the notes of the learned Henry Valois on theecclesia.stical histories of Socrate.s and Sezouieuu»< 
 
44 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 struck out a new path or new paths for themselves, we are really not 
 prepared to say. As our readers may, however, be more acute than we 
 are, we will give them an opportunity of judging for themselves ; merely 
 recording our decided conviction, that there is, and can be, no rational 
 medium between the full admission of the Catholic doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation, and the unqualified rejection of the real presence altogether. 
 
 Mr. Palmer thus writes on the subject: 
 
 “ In the ninth century, the doctrine of the holy Eucharist became the 
 subject of discussion. It had never been denied by the Catholic Church, 
 that this sacrament, when consecrated, continues to be bread and wine, 
 according to the words of the apostle : ‘ the bread which we break, is it 
 not the communion of the body of Christ?’ and of our Lord, ‘I will 
 drink no more of the fruit of the vinef ” etc} 
 
 We humbly enter our solemn protest against the putting of this absurd 
 interpretation, or rather perversion of the Scriptures, into the mouth of 
 the Holy Catholic Church. The passage from St. Paul, and what the 
 apostle farther says on the subject in the following chapter, clearly 
 establish the Catholic doctrine of the real presence ; and his calling the 
 holy Eucharist bread after the consecration, only'proves that it continued 
 to have all the appearances and sensible qualities of bread ; while the 
 words of our blessed Lord, as clearly appears from St. Luke’s gospel, 
 do not refer to the consecrated wine at all, but merely to that used in 
 the paschal supper, which preceded the institution of the holy Eucha¬ 
 rist. All this has been proved over and again ; nor does our present 
 scope require or allow us to enter fully into a subject, which has been 
 already fully elucidated 
 
 The historian next proceeds to state, that Paschasius Radbert, a 
 French monk, first introduced the doctrine of transubstantiation (!), and 
 to censure Scotus and Berengarius for falling into the opposite extreme, 
 of “declaring the Eucharist to be a bare sign of the body and blood of 
 Christ, contrary to the universal belief of the Church.” ^ Here the 
 Right Reverend note-maker feels aggrieved, and undertakes to defend 
 Berengarius after this wise : 
 
 “ This was long held to be the case ; yet not without doubt. (See 
 Mosheim.) But it has lately been disproved by the publication of a 
 treatise of Berenger, fuller and later than any before known, which 
 plainly shows his view of the sacrament to have been different from that 
 of Scotus.” 
 
 The bishop here again proves himself much wiser than all antiquity, 
 — wiser than the bishops of the eight different councils which succes¬ 
 sively condemned the errors of Berengarius from the year 1050 to the 
 year 1080,—wiser than Berengarius himself, who repeatedly quotes and 
 praises the opinions of Scotus. We are left to our conjectures as to the 
 character of this “publication of Berenger, fuller and later than any 
 
 1 80. 
 
 2 Ibid, page 81. 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 45 
 
 before known;” but we presume that it is not “fuller or later” than 
 the unequivocal recantation of his errors, and profession of the Catholic 
 faith made by him in the council of Bordeaux, in 1080; which confes¬ 
 sion of faith was satisfactory to the assembled fathers, and obiained his 
 readmission into the bosom of the Catholic Church, from which he is 
 not recorded to have again departed. This is surely the fullest and 
 latest edition of the opinions of Berengarius. 
 
 But the bishop evidently wished to catch, in the meshes of Puseyism, 
 the cunning arch-heretic of the eleventh century. If the facts of history 
 would warrant it, we would cheerfully give him, not only Bei*engarius, 
 but all the heretics of the olden time. In fact, the crafty and versatile 
 archdeacon of Angers (Berengarius) would, we humbly think, have 
 made an excellent Puseyite, had he only chanced to be born at Oxford 
 in the nineteenth century 1 He had all the qualities requisite for a’ 
 genuine Oxfordite. He had the knack of so wrapping up his real 
 opinions in obscure verbiage, as to mj^stify and deceive his cotempora¬ 
 ries, including even many bishops. But Pope Gregory VII. was as 
 cunning at least as he: he caught him at last, won him by kindness, 
 convinced him of his errors, and caused him to recant, first in the 
 Roman council held in 1073, and then, more fully and explicitly, in 
 that of Bordeaux, in 1080. If the Puseyites, who have imitated him 
 in his wanderings, would likewise imitate him in his return to Catholic 
 unity, they would find Pius IX. as kind and paternal as was Gregory 
 VII. But whether the Protestant bishop of Maryland be disposed to 
 follow this “latest” example of Berengarius or not, we at least wish 
 him more success in his effort to make Berengarius a Puseyite, than he 
 has had in a late similar attempt on one Ratramn.' 
 
 On another page, the bishop gives, in a note, a very curious explana¬ 
 tion of the manner in which, what he calls the “unholy tyranny” of 
 Rome originated. As a specimen of sagacious reasoning, it is, in truth, 
 a perfect curiosity in its way. Mr. Palmer had said that during this 
 period “the bishops began to assume temporal authority—he would 
 have said, more truly, that emperors and princes and circumstances 
 forced it upon them. Now here is the editor’s sapient note on the 
 subject: 
 
 “It was clearly through these usurpations of the bishops that the 
 unholy tyranny of Rome grew into being. The episcopal claims were 
 gradually concentred in the one apostolical see of the west; and all the 
 power that the weakness or wickedness of temporal princes had thrown 
 into the hands of the spiritual rulers, was thus drawn to a single focus.”" 
 
 Well, we humbly think, and we say it with all due respect, that the 
 bishop’s wits were not “drawn to a focus,” when he penned this 
 strange note. To us it sounds like something very nearly akin to 
 
 1 For a learned and satisfactory account of llerengarius, see Palma, Prctlectionts^ vol. iii, part i, 
 jage 33, et seq. 2 Page 103. 
 
46 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 downright absurdity. The bishops throughout the world acquired 
 more power, and therefore more independence; and hence the Roman 
 Pontiffs were enabled the more easily to establish their “unholy 
 tyranny’’ over them! We would as soon undertake to extract logic 
 and sense from the vagaries of Puseyism itself, as to gather either from 
 this precious piece of argument! 
 
 Mr. Palmer attempts to account for the origin of this “unholy 
 tyranny” in another way: he brings up again, for the hundredth time, 
 the stale argument drawn from the spurious decretals, ascribed to 
 Isidore Mercator. This argument had been dead and buried centuries 
 ago ; but our Oxfordite calls it up again from the tomb, hoping by the 
 exhibition of the ghastly spectre to frighten — old women and children 1 
 for men of sense have long since learned to view it with a steady nerve ; 
 that is, if they can check the rising disposition to merriment, at the 
 absurd importance attached to it by some superficial persons 1 Here are 
 his words : 
 
 “The power of the Roman see in the western church was greatly 
 augmented in the ninth century, by the fabrication of a large body of 
 decretal epistles or ecclesiastical laws, which purported to have been 
 written by the Popes during the first three centuries, and in which the 
 judgment of all bishops, the holding of all councils, and a right to hear 
 appeals from all ecclesiastical judgments, were claimed for the Roman 
 Pontiffs,” etc.' 
 
 Mosheim had gone a step farther, and boldly asserted, what our 
 modest historian only plainly intimates, that the Popes themselves were 
 concerned in this fabrication. The truth is, the Popes had nothing at all 
 to do with the collection in question ; nor can it be proved that Nicholas 
 I. ever declared those decretals genuine, as Mr. Palmer asserts he did.'^ 
 They were composed and circulated, some time in the eighth century, 
 by some person calling himself Isidore Mercator or Peccator ,^—a man so 
 obscure that the learned are not yet agreed as to his origin, or even his 
 name. He appears to have composed the work somewhere in Germany 
 
 1 Pages 103—4. 
 
 2 Ibid. The spurious decretals were circulated in conjunction with many other documents of 
 
 undoubted genuineness ; and the whole collection was soon received as having the force of law. 
 Nicholas I. merely insisted on its authority as law, which it had already acquired by custom. The 
 fact of its genuineness was not so much discussed as assumed. (Cf. Epist. Nicholai I. Hincmaro 
 Rhcmens.) Some additional light is perhaps thrown on this whole transaction by the fact, that it 
 was not unu.sual in the fourth, fifth, and following centuries, for authors to write under assumed or 
 fictitious names. Thus the writer who put forth the collection of canonical regulations, called the 
 ipostoHcal Constitvtions, probably some time in the fourth century, ascribed those laws to the 
 apostles themselves: though they merely embodied the ecclesiastical discipline of the first four 
 centuries; chiefly that of the Greek church. This collection is certainly spurious; yet it has 
 considerable authority from the fact just named, tind from the additional circumstance, that it had 
 great weight in the fourth and following centuries. Isidore’s collection borrowed largely from the 
 one just named In the fifth century, Vigilius Tapsensis composed several works under the fictitious 
 name of and some critics believe that he is the real author of the works ascribed to 
 
 Dionysius, the Areopagite. In those times, men did not care so much for the name of the author, as 
 tor the intrinsic merits of his book: and this circumstance may aid us in understanding, why the 
 collection of Isidore was not more critically examined, 
 
 3 Some think that the real author of them was Benedictus Levita. 
 
THE MIDLE AGES. 
 
 47 
 
 He states himself that his object in writing it was,— not to exalt the 
 privileges of the Roman Pontiffs,—but to save the bishops from being 
 annoyed with unnecessary litigation. 
 
 Will it be believed that a man so obscure, and writing in a part of 
 the world so remote from Rome, would have been able to revolutionize 
 public opinion in regard to the power of the Popes ? Would a mere 
 pettifogger of the present day be able, by putting out a new body of 
 laws, to change the whole face of the science of jurisprudence, and to 
 make men believe what they had hitherto rejected ? It will be said, 
 that this is an enlightened, and that the eighth century was a dark 
 age. But even admitting all this, for the sake of argument, the parallel 
 still holds good ; for it requires not enlightenment, but mere common 
 sense,— and men we presume always had common sense,— not to be 
 led away by every driveler who may choose to broach a new system, or 
 to publish a new book. 
 
 Had the spurious collection of Isidore contained aught that was not 
 fully conformable to the canonical usages of the eighth and ninth 
 centuries, it would certainly never have obtained the approbation it did 
 receive. It passed current unchallenged, because it did but embody 
 the principles of those and of previous ages. Nor was it entirely a 
 fabrication; it was chiefly U tissue of passages extracted from the 
 councils and fathers of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. The only 
 fault of the writer was, to have placed these words in the mouths of 
 the Popes of the first three centuries. This, though a serious fault in 
 criticism, was yet not one which seriously affected the substance of 
 things. Something more than mere assertion will be necessary to prove 
 that the principles embodied in this collection were new and before 
 unheard of; or that the action on them by the Roman Pontiff’s was 
 generally resisted by “the bishops, especially those of France,”—as 
 Mr. Palmer tells us.‘ 
 
 It could be easfly proved, that all the prerogatives of the Roman 
 Pontiff's,—“ the judgment of all bishops, ^the holding of all councils, 
 and a right to hear appeals from all ecclesiastical judgment,”—which 
 our flippant historian assures us were first introduced by these false 
 decretals, had been already generally recognized and brought into action 
 for many centuries before. 
 
 Had not the third and fourth canons of the great council of Sardica, 
 111 me middle of the fourth century, expressly recognized the right of 
 the Roman Pontiffs to receive appeals from all parts of Christendom, 
 especially in controversies regarding bishops ? Had not the Bishops of 
 Rome exercised this right of their see from the very beginning, not only 
 ill the west but also in the east? Had not Pope Julius I. written to 
 the Arians of the east, who had condemned St. Athanasius, as follows : 
 “ Were you ignorant that it was customary that we should be written to 
 first, that hence the first decision might issue?” And does not the 
 
 1 Ibid. 
 
48 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 Greek historian, Sozomenus, speaking of this letter of Julius, say: 
 “ There was a sacerdotal law, that those things should be held null and 
 void, which were done against or without the sanction of the Roman 
 Bishop?'*^ Had not the legate of the Roman see, in the general 
 council of Chalcedon, (A. D. 451,) composed almost entirely of Greek 
 bishops, insisted successfully on the exclusion from the council, of 
 Dioscorus, patriarch of A lexandria, on the ground that he “ had presumed 
 and dared to celebrate a general synod without the authority of the holy 
 see, v)hich never had been allowed, never had been done ? ^ 
 
 A volume might be filled with such facts ; but these will suffice to 
 prove, that the spurious decretals effected no change whatever in the 
 relations of the Church to the Roman Pontiffs.^ 
 
 We must briefly advert to one more topic, and then we will close our 
 remarks on the present epoch. Mr. Palmer tells our roundly, that the 
 Greek schism was caused by the ambition of the Roman Pontiffs : “ the 
 east and the west were estranged by the ambition of the Roman Pontiffs.”'* 
 Nothino’ could be more unfounded than this assertion. All the documents 
 
 O 
 
 of liistory conspire to prove, that it was the unhallowed ambition of the 
 bishops of Constantinople, and not that of the Roman Pontiffs, which 
 originated and consummated this deplorable division of tlie Church. 
 The see of Constantinople — called Byzantaum before it became the seat 
 of empire under Constantine the Great in 330 — was not even one of 
 those which had been founded by the apostles or their immediate disciples. 
 Originally it had no pre-eminence whatever ; its bishops were merely the 
 suffragans of Heraclea, the metropolis of Thrace. For the first three 
 hundred and fifty years of the Christian era, it was never even mentioned 
 among the principal sees. During all this time, there were only three 
 great patriarchates, which ranked as follows : first, that of Rome ; second 
 that of Alexandria ; third, that of Antioch.® This order of pre-eminence 
 was generally recognized, and was followed in the proceedings of the 
 first general council, — that of Nice, in 326. 
 
 It is curious to mark the various successive steps, by which this 
 original order of things was disturbed, and the bishops of Constantinople 
 arose to eminence by their own restless ambition, aided by the infiuence 
 of the Greek emperors. This powerful influence repressed, if it did not 
 silence, the murmurs of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who 
 could not but view with some displeasure this sudden elevation of the 
 bishops of the imperial city, to the prejudice of their own long established 
 rights. The first step was taken in the second general council convened 
 at Constantinople, in the year 381, for the condemnation of the heresy 
 of Macedonius, bishop of that city,— and we may remark here, en passant, 
 
 1 Hist. Ecclesiasr.. lib. iii, cap. x. 
 
 2 ‘-Quia piffisump.sit, et ausus est gynodum generalem facere sine auctoritate sedia Apostolicje, 
 quod mtnquam licuit, niinquam. factum est,’’' — Concil. Chalced. Act, i. Cf. Archbishop Keurick '‘on 
 the Primacy.” 
 
 3 This wliole subject is handled by Palma with his usual learning and ability. — Prcp.lectioncs 
 tom. ii, part II, p. 124, et seq. See also Archbishop Kenrick “ on the Primacy.” 
 
 6. 5 That of Jeru.salem was of subsequent date. 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 49 
 
 that the bishops of Constantinople originated three at least, if not more, 
 of the great heresies which disturbed the early Church! 
 
 The third canon of this council enacted, that “ the bishop of 
 Constantinople should have the first place of honor after the Roman 
 bishop, because Constantinople is the new Rome.” This is, to say the 
 least, a very insufficient reason for a plain usurpation : but it marks the 
 real source of the pre-eminence claimed by the Constantinopolitan 
 bishops. The Roman see, and the Western Church, never approved of 
 this canon. It was justly viewed as the commencement of an innovation 
 frauofht with dansfer to the Church. The forecast of the Roman Pontiffs 
 tias been, alas 1 but too sadly confirmed by the event. 
 
 Emboldened by this partial success, the ambitious bishops of Constan¬ 
 tinople went a step farther. After the council of Chalcedon had closed 
 its sessions in 451, and the legates of the Roman see had departed, 
 Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople, assembled a portion of the 
 eastern bishops, and clandestinely enacted the famous 28th canon of that 
 council which gave to the bishops of the imperial city, for the reason 
 assigned above, equal honor and authority with those of Rome : and this 
 too in the face of the solemn declarations of the same council' in its 
 sixteenth action or session : “We all see that, before all things, the 
 primacy and the principal honor should, according to the cinons, be 
 confirmed to the most beloved Arch-bishop of ancient Rome ! ” It is 
 needless to observe, that Pope St. Leo the Great, and with him all the 
 western Church, strongly condemned this canon. 
 
 We pass over the arrogant assumption by John the Faster, — another 
 bishop of Constantinople, — of the lofty title of oecumenical or universal 
 bishop, — an attempt for which'he was well rebuked by Pope St. Gregory 
 the Great. We omit also to refer to some further indications of a similar 
 pride in the proceedings of the Greek council in Trullo, in 692 ; or to 
 the ambitious attempts of the bishops of Constantinople to encroach on 
 the jurisdiction of the Roman patriarchate.* We-come down immediately 
 to Photius in the ninth century, who was certainly an ambitious usurper, 
 foisted into the see of Constantinople by the power of the imperial court. 
 His consecration was in every respect uncanonical and irregular; Rome 
 very properly raised her voice against it, and succeeded in having the 
 sainted Ignatius, the lawful bishop, re-established in his see. The schism 
 was thus crushed for a time ; but Photius was a man of great talent and 
 versatility, and as untiring in his efforts as he was unprincipled. He 
 succeeded, but too well, in poisoning the minds of many among the 
 Greek bishops against Rome ; and he was enabled to exercise this baneful 
 influence the more effectually, after he had succeeded, by his arts, in 
 being again constituted bishop of Constantinople, on the death of 
 St. lo-natius. 
 
 O 
 
 Two centuries later, this suppressed animosity broke out into an open, 
 and, with two brief intervals excepted, a final rupture with Rome, under 
 
 1 This is acknowledged in substance bv Mr. Palmer himself— pp lOi, 105. 
 
 I '7 
 
50 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 the Constantinopolitan bishop, Michael Cerularius. Mr. Palmer himself 
 admits, that this proud man was the aggressor, in the controversy which 
 arose between him and Rome. He tells us that 
 
 “When Cerularius, bishop of Constantinople, wrote to the bishop of 
 Trani in Italy condemning several of the rites and ceremonies of the 
 Roman Church, and shut up the Latin churches and monasteries in 
 Constantinople, the legate of the Roman see, Cardinal Humbert, insisted 
 on his implicit submission to the Pope; and, on his refusal, left an 
 excommunication on the altar of his patriarchal church of St. Sophia at 
 Constantinople.”^ 
 
 Among the “ rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church” censured by 
 Cerularius in his letter to John, bishop of Trani, were the following : 
 
 “ That the Latins did notabstain from thins^s strano-led and from blood: 
 that they consecrated in unleavened bread ; that their monks eot hogs* 
 lard; that ihehr priests shaved their beards ; that their bishops wore rings 
 like bridegrooms ; that fast was kept on Saturday; and that Alleluia was 
 not sung in Lent! 
 
 With this brief summary of undoubted facts, we leave our readers to 
 decide, whether it was the ambition of the Roman Pontiflfs which caused 
 the Greek schism. We could easily show that in all the first eight 
 general councils, composed too almost entirely of Greek bishops, the 
 primacy of the Roman Pontiffs was distinctly and repeatedly recognized; 
 and that in all of them the legates of the Roman see presided.^ We 
 must be content with one or two remarks on the proceedings of the first 
 general council,— that of Nice, in 325. 
 
 The sixth canon of this council has often been cited against the 
 primacy; though, even as it now stands, it says nothing opposed to this 
 tenet. In many of the oldest manuscript copies of the Nicene canons, 
 the phrase, “ the Roman church always held the primacy, is inserted 
 at the beginning of this same canon. It was found in the copy used by 
 the Roman Church in the fourth century; and it was read and approved 
 of in the sixteenth session of the council of Chalcedon. The passage 
 which we quoted above from this council, immediately follows the 
 reading of the Nicene canon with the clause referred to. That this 
 -clause was also found in the older collections of the Nicene canons, used 
 in the east in the fourth century, would appear from a decree of the 
 Emperor Valentinian against St. Hilary of Arles, in which instrument 
 distinct allusion is made to this portion of the canon : “ the authority of 
 ihe sacred synod has confirmed the primacy of the apostolic see of 
 Peter,” &c.* 
 
 But our observations on the present epoch have already extended far 
 beyond what we had originally intended, and though many things yet 
 remain to be noticed, we must hasten on to the next sera. 
 
 1 p 106. 2 See Palma, vol. ill, part i, p. 62 et seq. 
 
 3 See, among other writers^ Cabassutius — Notitia Ecclesias. p. 103, et seq. and Archbishop Kenrick 
 “on the Primacy.” 
 
 4 H sxxT^ridia rCavto-fs to. TCpcoi'cia. 
 
 b Cf Cabassutius, ibid, p. Ill, et seq. vol. i, fol. Edit. Lugduni, 1702. 
 
51 
 
 # 
 
 THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 EPOCH IV, A. D. 1054—1517.‘ 
 
 f 
 
 Our remarks on this period will be necessarily very brief. It waii 
 signalized by the final conversion of many of the northern nations, and 
 by the holy lives of such men as St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Laurence 
 Justinian, and Thomas a Kempis. Our author furnishes beautiful sketches 
 of the lives of all these illustrious men. We have room only for the 
 following touching anecdote of St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, 
 who died, A. D. 1109 : 
 
 "‘He often retired in the day to his devotions, and not unfrequently 
 continued the whole night in prayer. An anecdote has been preserved 
 which shows how continually his mind was engaged on the great and 
 awful realities of religion. One day as he was riding, at one of his 
 manors, a hare pursued by the hounds ran under his horse for refuge ; 
 on which he stopped, and the hounds stood at bay. The hunters began 
 to laugh at the circumstance ; but Anselm said weeping ‘this hare reminds 
 me of a poor sinner on the point of departing this life surrounded by devils 
 w'aiting to carry away their prey.’ The hare going off, he forbade lier to 
 be pursued, and was obeyed. In this manner every circumstance served 
 to raise his mind to God; and, in the midst of noise and tumult, he 
 enjoyed all of that tranquility and peace which naturally arose from the 
 continual contemplation of his God and Saviour,and which elevated him 
 above the cares and anxieties of this life.”^ 
 
 This is a pretty good specimen of the good old Catholic piety in the 
 middle ages. We doubt very much whether any Protestant archbishop 
 of Canterbury has been endowed with any such sanctity ; or whether 
 any one of the modern fox-hunting parsons of the Anglican establishment 
 was ever known to pause in the chase, to make any such pious reflections ! 
 What says Bishop Whittingham on this subject ? He has not thought it 
 necessary to append a little note here, for our special enlightenment. 
 
 We have much fault to find with many of our author’s statemeols 
 during this period; but, strange to say, we have little cause to blame his 
 Right Reverend editor. This probably arises from the fact that his 
 lordship, exhausted perhaps by his previous labors in the field of history, 
 rests his wearied mind during these 364 years somewhat after the manner 
 of the seven sleepers of old. The four small notes which he has dropped 
 might have been penned inier somnum et vigiUas, for all the importance 
 they possess, or the information they convey ! One of them seems to 
 have been written, when he was just beginning to awake from a horrid 
 dream of papal tyranny and “Romish” abominations. We must record 
 this incoherent “ note of a dreamer,” and then we will leave his lordship 
 to enjoy his slumbers undisturbed. 
 
 Mr. Palmer had, in the text, praised the refusal of the Greek church to 
 submit to the primacy of Rome.^ The episcopal note-maker here breaks 
 forth in the following pious strain : 
 
 “ It ought not to be overlooked, how the providence of God thus 
 made the Roman attempts at usurpation (!) provide an insuperable bar 
 
 2 Pages 120, 121 3 Page 130 
 
 
 1 Prom p. 106 — 146. 
 
52 
 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 to the subsequent claim of Catholicity to Romish (!) corruptions in 
 doctrine and practice. The latter might have become universal but for 
 the hostility awakened by the former.”* 
 
 We will pass over the rhetoric of this passage. Now for the logic. 
 If the “ Romish ” Church was not then Catholic, pray what church 
 was ? Was the Greek church, — confined as it certainly was to a com- 
 * paratively small portion of the earth,—endowed with this attribute 
 
 of universality ? Though even this would not be so palpably absurd, as 
 the pretension of the Anglican church to be the Church Catholic 1 As 
 well might Bishop Whittingham pretend that Maryland is the whole 
 world! Or had the Catholic Church, which the bishop professes to 
 believe in, as often as he recites either of the two creeds still held by his 
 church, vanished entirely from the face of the earth ? What then becaine 
 of the solemn promis'es of Christ ? Besides it is truly unfortunate for 
 the worthy editor’s argument, that the Greek church then held, and still 
 holds those identical “ corruptions in doctrine and. practice ” which so 
 much excite his bile against the “ Romish” Church ; and, as far at least 
 as these are concerned, she agreed and yet agrees with the Roman 
 Church. Perhaps the obstinate repugnance of the Greeks to the 
 shaving of the beard, and to the use of hogs’ lard by the monks, 
 destroyed the Catholicity of the Church 1 We had quite forgotten this ! 
 We give it up ! 
 
 We will now glance rapidly at some of the leading inaccuracies of 
 our historian in matters of fact. Speaking of the primacy, he uses this 
 sweeping language:— 
 
 “As for the eastern churches they rejected and denied this novel(!) 
 doctrine which was never declared to be an article of faith by any 
 general synod ; for the synod of Lyons, in which this doctrine was 
 advanced by the ambassadors of the Greek emperor to gratify the Pope, 
 and by some Greek bishops who acted under intimidation ; and the synod 
 of Florence, in which it was forced on those Greek bishops who were 
 present, were rejected by the Greek church. The latter synod, indeed, 
 was of doubtful authority even in the west, as it consisted only of Italian 
 bishops, while the rival synod of Basle was sitting at the same time.”^ 
 
 There are at least six palpable misstatements in this extract, besides 
 other smaller ones expressed or implied. 
 
 1. It is not true, that this was a novel doctrine, as we have already 
 shown. 2. It is not true, that this article was not defined by any general 
 synod : it had been expressly declared to be the faith of the Church, and 
 had been acted on as such, in every one of the six first general councils, 
 which our author himself admits to have been oecumenical. This we 
 have also seen. 3. It is not true that the Greek church, at least at first, 
 rejected the general synod — the second of Lyons — held in 1274. They 
 subsequently refused to admit its authority, but they had already approved 
 of it, through their regular representatives at the council. 4. The same 
 must be said of the council of Florence, which was only subsequently 
 
 1 Note. ibid. 2 Page 116. 
 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 63 
 
 1 ejected by the Greeks, chiefly through the perfidious conduct of Mark, 
 bisliop of Ephesus. This instability of the Greeks only proved the 
 proverbial Greek faith —the Grceca Jides ; but it did not invalidate the acts 
 of the councils in question, any more than the rejection of the first general 
 council of Nice by the Arians had rendered null its doctrinal decisions. 
 
 5. There is no evidence to prove that, in the general council of Lyons, 
 
 “ the ambassadors of the Greek emperor ” advocated the primacy to 
 “gratify the Pope,” or that in it “ the Greek bishops acted under 
 intimidation.” This is all a paltry suspicion unworthy of an historian. 
 This same council of Lyons was one of the most numerous that was 
 ever convened: it was composed of five hundred bishops, both Latin 
 and Greek, besides one thousand abbots and distinguished divines : and 
 it certainly clearly represented the whole Church. 
 
 G. It is not true, that the council of Florence “was of doubtful 
 authority, even in the west.” The “ rival synod of Basle ” had degene¬ 
 rated into a schismatical conventicle, which had very few adherents ; 
 and the whole western Church very soon after received the decrees of 
 the Florentine council. Its canons were universally viewed as having 
 e.manated from a general council; at least those which had been enacted 
 before the departure of the Greek bishops; —including the famous 
 definition on the primacy, which was signed by the bishops of both the 
 Greek and Latin churches. It is not true, that this synod “ consisted 
 only of Italian bishops; ” the Greek church was certainly represented in 
 it by some of its bishops ; and after the departure of these, the Armenian 
 and Jacobite, and subsequently the Abyssinian bishops sanctioned its 
 decrees, and were re-united to the Roman Church.* Were not the six 
 general councils which Mr. Palmer receives, composed almost entirely 
 of Greek bishops ? Was the Latin Church as fully represented in any • 
 of them, as was the Greek Church in those of Lyons and Florence ? 
 
 We should be endless were we to undertake the refutation of all the 
 historical blunders, which our author has scattered over the pages that 
 treat of this epoch. Here, for instance, is another curious extract from 
 the same page as the one just given : 
 
 “ The synod of Florence, just alluded to, was the first which taught 
 the doctrine of purgatory as an article of faith. It {^not the synod, but 
 the doctrine) had indeed been held by the Popes and by many writers ; 
 and it became the popular doctrine during the period under review ; but 
 it was not decreed by any authority of the universal, or even the whole 
 Latin Church. In the eastern church it was always rejected.” 
 
 Even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the council of Florence 
 was the first which defined this doctrine as an article of faith, would it 
 thence follow that the doctrine itself was of recent origin ? It could 
 only be inferred that it was never before questioned ; and that, therefore, 
 there was no need of any definition on the subject. Would it follow 
 from the fact, that the council of Nice was the first general synod which 
 
 1. Cabassutius, Notitia Jicclesiastiea. in Concilia Lugduii. II, et Ploreatiaum. 
 
 12 
 
 
54 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 defined the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, 
 that this too was a new doctrine, unknown to the three previous centuries ? 
 Mr. Palmer himself admits, that this tenet of purgatory “ had become 
 the popular doctrine during the period under review;” which, in 
 connection with the solemn promises of Christ to guard his Church 
 from error, clearly proves that it was an article of divine revelation,— 
 on the principles.even of our Oxford divine! 
 
 It is not true, that “ it was always rejected in the eastern church.” 
 The Greek church admitted it in the council of Florence, and, at least, 
 impliedly, in that of Lyons. It had never been a bar to union between 
 the churches, however their theologians may have differed on the 
 secondary question, — whether the souls detained in this middle place of 
 temporary expiation, are purified by a material fire ? The ancient fathers, 
 both of the Greek and Latin Church, who had occasion to refer to the 
 subject, had unanimously agreed in maintaining the doctrine, as could be 
 easily shown by reference to their works.' All the ancient liturgies of 
 both churches had embodied this same article of faith. And even at 
 present, not only the Greek church, but all the oriental sectaries still 
 hold it as doctrine, and practice accordingly. 
 
 We are prepared to prove all this, and more besides. Let Bishop 
 Whittingham only deny one of these facts, and we promise him proof to 
 his heart’s content. 
 
 We are also amply provided with proof to establish the falsity of the 
 following statement, which we merely give as a specimen of Oxford skill 
 in mystification : 
 
 “The council of Lateran (the foiirth of that name, A. D. 1215,) 
 indeed, had made use^of the word transubstantiation to express the 
 change by which the bread and wine become the sacrament of Christ’s 
 body and blood ; but this word might be, and in fact was, used in 
 many senses inconsistent with the Romish interpretation of it; and the 
 object of the synod itself seems to have been merely to establish the old 
 doctrine of the presence and reception of Christ’s body and blood in the 
 sacrament, in opposition to the Manichean errors.” 
 
 This is, indeed, a curious piece of absurdity. It is worthy of Dr. 
 Pusey himself. So Rome, we presume, must go to Oxford, before she 
 can learn her own doctrines aright! This same doctrine of transub¬ 
 stantiation, besides being perhaps the clearest of all the doctrines 
 contained in the Bible, could be also established by whole volumes of 
 ancient testimony.^ 
 
 Our historian tells us the truth, — who would have thought it? — 
 about the doctrine of indulgences ; but he complains, singularly enough, 
 that their too great extension ruined the ancient penitential discipline of 
 the Church : 
 
 1. See their tesHiiioriies accuiiiulated in the “ Faith of ('atholies,” sup- cit. See also tiie learned 
 work of the Greek, I;eo Allatiua —“ I)e (’onaeiisu Orientalis Eei-lesiae, &c., in dosimare I'nreatorii.” 
 1 Vol. r2aio. This work exhausts the sul>ject. Wonder if Mr. Calmer ever heard of thi.s learned 
 publication! 2 See “ Faith of the Catholics.” — sup. cU. 
 
 
THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 65 
 
 The plenary indulgence which the Popes issued, first to the crusadei’s, 
 but afterwards to many other persons, completed the ruin of the penitential 
 discipline of the Church. These indulgences, or pardons, were the 
 remission of the lengthened works of penitence imposed by the ancient 
 canons. All that was necessary to obtain them, was to confess to a 
 priest all past sins (with true sorrow and purpose of amendment, wo 
 add,) to go to the crusade in Palestine or in some other country, or to 
 perform some other work assigned by the Pop^.”‘ 
 
 One would think that this all was a great deal. Protestants have 
 granted a much more ample indulgence than this : — they have abolished 
 penitential works altogether, and with them eveiry thing that is in any 
 way painful to human nature ! Theirs is at least a very easy way to 
 heaven, provided it be only safe. They — the Anglican “Church 
 Catholic” (!) always included — have swept oflf entirely, at one fell 
 stroke, the whole ancient “ penitential system of the Church.” Why 
 does not Mr. Palmer, and why does not the Protestant bishop of Maryland, 
 make some effort to restore this same ancient penitential system ? 
 
 Our author says, that the scapular “was now worn by some persons 
 as a sort of charm; —we thought it was worn only as a badge of 
 
 a pious confraternity. He ridicules the idea of the commutation of 
 one penance for another, and laughs at St. Peter Damian for affirming,— 
 for which fact we have only his bare word, — “ that the repetition of the 
 psalter twenty times accompanied by discipline (that is, scourging,) was 
 equal to a hundred years of penitence.”^ This he^calls an ingenious 
 way of “paying the debt.”"* Protestants have discovered a far more 
 ingenious way of paying this same debt of penance, — they have 
 repudiated it altogether 1 
 
 He cannot bear the idea of “ sackcloth or haircloth worn next the skin, 
 by way of voluntary mortification.”* It is absolutely shocking to his 
 delicate nerves, only to think of this cruel infliction ! I*Ior can he relish 
 the devotion of the rosary, introduced by St. Dominic. The Protestant 
 sense of smell has become, alas ! too obtuse to perceive the delightful 
 fragrance of this sweet chaplet of roses, woven in honor of her, —“the 
 pure and holy one,”—who is 
 
 “Our tainted nature’s solitary boast.”® 
 
 Though, in truth, the honor is given chiefly to her divine Son, from 
 whom all her beauty is borrowed, and on whom it is again reflected 
 back. “The sensual man perceiveth not the things which are of the 
 Spirit of God: for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand; 
 because it is spiritually examined.”^ 
 
 Our author complains of the power of the Popes during this period ; 
 he denominates it “ the grand and crying evil of these ages.”® He tells 
 us two or three “ rousing ” ones, about the sainted Gregory VII;® which 
 he would have himself detected as such, had he only opened the life of 
 
 1 P. 138. 2 P. 142. 3 P. 141. 4 Ibid. 6 P. 142. 
 
 6 WoriBworth. 7 1 Cor. ii, 14. 8 P. 132 9 p. 133 
 
 
56 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 this great Pontiff, lately written by the Protestant historian, Voigt. He 
 gives us an absolutely incredible account of some disputes between the 
 Pope and the bishops of England:' but he takes special care not to give 
 us the name of the Pope in question, though we guess he means the 
 great Innocent IV.; nor does he furnish any authority whatever for 
 his statement. We enter a simple denial of the entire account, and 
 challenge proof. The author, in fact, seems to become absolutely 
 unsettled in mind, whenever the Popes and his own dear England come 
 into collision; or even when, without coming into actual conflict, they 
 appear at all on the arena. 
 
 He should have borne in mind, that, but for the efforts of the Popes, 
 and for the power they acquired in temporal matters by the free consent 
 of the European nations, Europe would, in all human probability, never 
 have arisen from barbarism nor progressed in civilization. That power 
 was almost always put in requisition to check tyranny, and to succor the 
 oppressed. The voice of Rome liberated the captive, struck off the 
 chains of the serf, cheered the oppressed, and struck terror into the 
 hearts of tyrants. Protestants have admitted all this. 
 
 Though we have marked many other passages for animadversion, yet 
 WO must here close our imnerfeot notice of the present epoch. 
 
 1 F. 135, et seq. 
 
III. CHURCH HISTORY.* 
 
 ARTICLE in. —THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 Necessity of calm impartiality — Protestant and Catholic views of reformation — Wickliffe and 
 Huss — Oriental languages — Foreign and British reformation — Luther and Carlostadt Curious 
 
 anachronism -Luther and Episcopacy — Anglican branch of the reformation —Scruples of 
 
 Henry VIII.”—The new Gospel light—The Anglican Pope — Royal prerogative predominant — 
 Cromwell Vicar General—Base .servility of first Anglican Bishop.s—Fisher and Moore — Burning 
 Protestants and Catholics — Palmer’s theory of Anglican reformation examined — Downright 
 tyranny—Trait of noble independence — Edward VI. — Slarried clergy —Improvements of 
 Anglican liturgy — Return to unity under Mary — Bull of St. Pius V. — Henry’s divorce — Refor- 
 marion in Ireland — How the Anglican church was persecuted in Ireland —Dr. Lingard’s testimony 
 and proofs — .Anglican saints— Ridley — McCauley’s portrait of Cranmer — A parallel — Infidelity 
 of Protestant origin—Anglican infidels — Suppression of Anglican convocation—Church and 
 state—Where Voltaire learnetl infidelity — Infidels in Protestant Europe — French clergy during 
 the Revolution — Did the French Revolution make any Protestant martyrs ? —Conclusion*. 
 
 We have now reached the fifth and last epoch of Church History, 
 according to Mr. Palmer’s division. It embraces the period intervening 
 between the year 1517, — the date of the reformation, so called^ — and 
 the year 1839, — when our historian’s work was published. 
 
 This is the most important and exciting era of ecclesiastical history. 
 It is difficult to approach it with that even temper of mind, which is 
 absolutely necessary to form a right judgment on its many startling 
 events. Men are too apt to view these through the medium of their 
 preconceived opinions; and we are not at all astonished that our Oxford 
 historian, who had already given so much evidence of deep prejudice, 
 should here have exhibited himself the thorough partisan. He hazards 
 the following opinion as to the general character of this whole period ; — 
 
 “ Fifthly, the epoch (1517 — 1839) when a reformation being called 
 for, was resisted by those who ought to have promoted it ; when the 
 western Church became divided; and at length infidelity came to 
 threaten universal destruction.”‘ 
 
 We would have drawn a different picture altogether of the period in 
 question. We would have designated it as the epoch when a reformation 
 having been called for in a violent and tumultuous manner, — by persons 
 too who wished, under pretext of reform, to undermine the ancient faith, 
 and who could not aoree amonii: themselves as to the nature or measure 
 
 O O 
 
 of the reformation asked for ; — the demand was met by the Church in 
 
 *.4 Compendious Ecclesiastical History, from the earliest period to the present time. By 
 the Rev. William Palmer, M. A., of Worce.ster College, Oxford. With a Preface 
 and Notes, by an American Editor. New York, 1841, republished. 1 Vol., l2mo. 
 pp. 228. 
 
 1 P. 5. sup eit. 
 
 57 
 
68 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 the only legal way, — by convening a general council to decide on the 
 doctrinal points called in question, and to devise the most suitable 
 remedies for existing evils in local discipline or morals; — when the 
 decisions of this council having been rejected by those who had clamored 
 for reform, and who had themselves appealed to its authority, these 
 became estranged from the Church, and split up into sects almost 
 innumerable ; — and when finally the unsettling of faith, caused by this 
 multiplication of sects, led men naturally to the frightful abyssof infidelity. 
 This picture is much more conformable to the facts of history, even as 
 Mr. Palmer reads them ; and this we hope to prove in the course of the 
 present paper. 
 
 Of Wickliffe and Huss, the boasted precursors of the reformation, our 
 author writes as follows : 
 
 ** Wickliffe had, in the preceding century, declaimed against the Popes 
 and against several abuses, and he was closely followed by Huss and 
 Jerome of Prague : but their opinions were mingled with much that 
 was exceptionable, and* they seem to have been unfitted rightly to 
 conduct the mighty work of reformation.*” 
 
 This is a very mild censure of men who were firebrands in society, 
 and whose principles led directly to sedition, and to the breaking up of 
 all social order. But still, mild as was the reproof, it seems greatly to 
 have shocked the sensibility of Bishop Whittingham, who here drops 
 this little note : “ More ought to have been said of this great precursor 
 of the reformation.”^ We think ourselves that the great Captain of the 
 Lollards was treated with some neglect by the Puseyite historian ; and 
 merely to satisfy the bishop, we will here give a few, out of the many 
 strange doctrines, broached by this great precursor of the reformation. 
 They are taken, almost at random, from a list of forty-five propositions 
 extracted from his writings, and condemned in the council of Constance,® 
 in 1415. 
 
 “ Prop. IV. If a bishop or priest be in the state of mortal sin, he 
 does not validly ordain, nor consecrate, nor administer the sacraments, 
 nor baptize. 
 
 “Prop. VI. God ought to obey the devil. (!)'* 
 
 “Prop. XXVII. All things happen througli absolute necessity. 
 
 “Prop. XXIX. Universities, places for study, colleges, taking out 
 degrees, (^graduationes) and professorships, were borrowed from paganism, 
 and are of as much profit to the Church as the devil. (!) 
 
 “ Prop. XXXII. To endow the clergy is against the law of Christ. 
 
 “ Prop. XLIII. Oaths are unlawful, when tliey are taken to confirm 
 contracts among men, or for commercial purposes.” 
 
 We wish the bishop much joy of his “great precursor,” who seems 
 to have had a wonderful taste for letters, and to have taken a strano-e 
 fancy for the evil one ! The bishop would do well, before he attempt to 
 administer the sacraments in future, or to make his visitation, to examine 
 
 1 P. 146. 2 Ibid. 3 Seesione VIII. 4 Deus debet obedire diabolo. 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 59 
 
 carefully whether he be in the state of sin, otherwise his acts might be 
 wholly invalid ; and if he have any worldly gear, we would advise him 
 by all means to give it to the poor without delay, as he would be else 
 sinninfiT ao’ainst the law of Christ! 
 
 Among the causes which prepared the way for the reformation, Mr. 
 Palmer places the following ; — 
 
 “ The introduction of the Greek and Hebrew languages (entirely 
 unknown during the middle ages) rendered the study of the Scriptures ' 
 in the original languages possible.”^ 
 
 In the assertion made in parenthesis, there is either a woful ignorance 
 of history, or a willful misstatement. The Oxford divine may select 
 between these two horns of the dilemma: — there is no escape. We 
 might accumulate evidence to prove, that not only the Greek and Hebrew, 
 but other oriental languages, were cultivated to a considerable extent 
 during the middle ages. Is Mr. Palmer ignorant of the fact, that 
 Cassiodorus, as early as the sixth century, revived the study of Greek 
 literature in Italy, and that Theodorus, archbishop of Canterbury, 
 introduced the same study into England, in the seventh century ? Can 
 he have been ignorant that many men, during that whole period, copied 
 and collated the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the holy Scriptures ? 
 Has it wholly escaped him, that, about the year 1285, Pope Honorius 
 IV., founded, in the university of Paris, a distinct professorship for the 
 cultivation of the oriental languages, with a view to prepare missionaries 
 for the provinces of Asia;^ and that Pope Clement V., in 1311, founded 
 professorships of Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac ? How, in fact, 
 could the missions.of the east, which we know flourished greatly in the 
 thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, have been carried on at all, without 
 an extensive acquaintance with the oriental languages ? 
 
 Our historian speaks very differently of what he calls the “foreign 
 reformation,”^ and of that which took place in the British churches. 
 He finds much to censure in the former, more however as to its manner 
 than its matter ; the latter is entirely after his own heart. We said in 
 our first paper, that his book was Church History set to Puseyism ; and 
 his whole account of the reformation, both on the continent and in 
 England, affords a clear proof of our assertion. He grievously misstates 
 on almost every page. We have not space to notice, much less to refute 
 all his errors in matters of fact. We will briefly unfold his theory, and 
 then advert to some of his more egregious blunders. 
 
 He laments the manner in which the foreign reformation commenced:— 
 
 “At lenofth the reformation began; but not as it could have been desired : 
 not promoted by the heads of the church, not regulated by the decrees 
 of councils.”'' 
 
 1 Pages 146—7. 
 
 2 It is but fair, liowever, to say, that this design of the enlightened Pontiff was not immediately 
 carried into full execution, at least in tlie university of Paris. 
 
 8 That in Germany, and on the continent of Europe. 
 
 4 P. 174. 
 
60 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 After having spoken of the papal bull against Luther, he remarks:— 
 
 “Luther and his friends Melancthon, Carlostadt, and all who were of 
 the same sentiments, were thus separated from the communion of the 
 Pope, and of his adherents in Germany not voluntarily, or by their 
 own act.”‘ 
 
 A little further on he says :— 
 
 “ It is to be lamented, however, that the Lutherans after a time forgot 
 that their system was merely provisional, and designed only to last till a 
 general council could be lawfully assembled. They then began to pretend 
 that their ancestors had separated voluntarily from the western church, 
 and justified this act by reasons which sanctioned schism and separation 
 generally.”^ 
 
 These passages exhibit the gist of his theory. Perhaps the reader 
 will incline to the opinion, that the Lutherans were much better judges 
 of their real position than the Oxford divine. If the latter has read 
 history aright, he must have come to the conclusion, that Rome had 
 exhausted every expedient of clemency and forbearance, ere she struck 
 the blow which separated the adherents of Luther from the Catholic 
 Church ; and that even after the bull had been fulminated, she left no 
 means untried to reclaim those deluded men who were obstinately bent 
 on separation. For this purpose embassy after embassy was sent into 
 Germany ; nor did this commendable solicitude cease until after the year 
 1535, when the outrageous treatment by Luther of the legate Vergerio, 
 sent by Pope Paul III., cutoff all hopes of conciliation.^ The appeal by 
 Luther to a general council,— as the event proved,— was merely a crafty 
 expedient to gain time: his real and fixed purpose, almost from the 
 beginning, was to force a separation from the Church ; and not all the 
 efforts of the Roman Pontiffs and of the general council of Trent 
 subsequently convened, could prevent this unhappy result. 
 
 The reader, who is at all conversant with the history of those times, 
 can scarcely repress a smile when he hears it gravely asserted, that 
 “Luther and his friend Carlostadt were of the same sentiments.” They 
 agreed about as well as fire and water; and the same may be said of all 
 the leading reformers. It would puzzle even a Puseyite to reconcile Mr. 
 Palmer’s assertion, that the bull of excommunication against Luther was 
 fulminated in the year 1521,'* with the notorious fact, that Luther had 
 burned this same bull at Wittemberg on the 10th of December, in the 
 previous year 1520 ! Still greater ingenuity would be required to 
 reconcile our author’s flippant assertion, that “ episcopacy was never 
 rejected by the Lutherans,”® with the certain fact, that Luther, the father 
 of the sect, was violently opposed to it during his whole life, and wrote 
 a most inflammatory work against it.® This, with some other Avorks of a 
 similar character, drew from the Protestant historian Hallam the pungent 
 
 1 Ibid. 2 P. 150. 3 See Audio’s Life of Luther, p. 47'2, ei seq. 
 
 4 P. 147. 6 P. 150. 
 
 6 ‘Contra falso nominatum ordinem episcoporum. Though leveled chiefly at the Catholic bishopH, 
 this violent pamphlet aims at nothing less than the destruction of the episcopacy itself. 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 61 
 
 remark, that the arch-reformer’s writings were little more than “a 
 bellowinof in bad Latin.” 
 
 O 
 
 For the special edification of Mr. Palmer’s admirers, we will give one 
 short extract from the publication of Luther just alluded to : 
 
 “ Listen, bishops; listen, you vampires and devils! The Doctor comes 
 to read for you a bull, which will make your ears tingle. The bull of 
 Doctor Martin is this : whoever aids with his corporal strength, or with 
 his property, to destroy the episcopacy, and slay the order of bishops, is 
 a cherished child of God, and a good Christian. If he cannot do that, 
 at least let him condemn and avoid this body. Whoever defends the 
 episcopacy, or obeys its mandates, is a minister of Satan. Amen.”* 
 
 We might remark on many other false or unfair statements of our 
 historian in reference to the foreign reformation, for which, notwith¬ 
 standing his dislike of some of its proceeedings, very feebly expressed, 
 he evidently cherishes a sympathetic feeling. But we must hasten on to 
 his account of the reformation effected in the “ British churches,” under 
 which name he includes those of Ireland and Scotland. We have already 
 remarked, that whenever his own dear England is concerned, he seems 
 to become absolutely unsettled in mind : and we defy any one to read 
 his very lengthy account of the progress of the reformation in England, 
 Ireland, and Scotland, without being convinced that a little learning and 
 much bigotry “ have made him mad.” He devotes two whole chapters,** 
 extending through thirty-eight pages, to this portion of his history,— if 
 that can be called a history, wlych is a tissue of false statements almost 
 from beginning to end. His account of what he calls the “Irish church,”® 
 is well worthy of the man, who had the heartlessness to write the atrocious 
 libel on the Irish clergy and people, which sometime ago appeared in the 
 London Quarterly Review. Its perusal is enough to make one’s blood 
 boil in his veins, even if those veins are not Irish. 
 
 He gravely tells us of the “scruples of Henry VIII. as to the lawfulness 
 of his marriage with Catharine, the widow of his elder brother,”"* and 
 of the manner in which Pope Clement VII. “protracted the affair by 
 various expedients for six years,” for which course he can find no better 
 motive than the influence of the Emperor Charles V., Catharine’s uncle; 
 and this wise delay of the Pontiff he can ascribe to naught but “ the arts 
 and chicanery of the court of Rome.”® He next proceeds to state that 
 6enry was sustained in his application for divorce by “the universities 
 of Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Bologna, Padua, Orleans, Angiers, 
 Bourges, Toulouse, &c., and by a multitude of theologians and 
 canonists;” that the Pontiff still proving untractable, Henry “privately 
 married Anna Boleyn,” and that “ the convocation of the church of 
 England immediately afterwards declared his former marriage null, and 
 approved that recently contracted.”® 
 
 It is really difficult to have patience with a man, who thus glaringly 
 
 1 Cf Audin ut sup. p. 218. 
 8 I* 167, ct seq. 
 
 K 
 
 2 Chapters xxii and xxiii, from p. 167 to 195. 
 6 P. 168—9. 6 Ibid. 
 
 4 P. 158. 
 
62 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY, 
 
 perverts, or miscolors the plainest facts of history. The scruples of 
 Henry the VIII., forsooth! The scruples of the man, who was 
 subsequently the murderer of his wives, and the unmitigated tyrant 
 over his people ! The scruples of the man, of whom it has been truly 
 said, that he never spared man in his anger, nor woman in his lust!” 
 The scruples of the man, who wantoned in the sacrilegious spoliation of 
 the monasteries and sanctuaries of religion, and whom all impartial men 
 of every shade of opinion have long since branded as the Nero of the 
 sixteenth century! The scruples of the man, who had already lived in 
 perfect quietude of conscience with Catharine, the best of women and 
 most virtuous of wives, for eighteen long years ! She was a woman, 
 too, whom even he could not accuse of any crime, except that of having 
 grown old, and of having presented him no male issue ;—a woman 
 whom even he was compelled to respect to the hour of her death ; whose 
 gentleness, magnanimity, and piety, extorted homage from all her 
 cotemporaries and from all posterity; and whose death caused even him 
 to relent, to drop the unwilling tear, and to order his whole court to go 
 into mourning! 
 
 And then, how did these pretended scruples awaken in his mind, after 
 having lain dormant for so many years ? How did the new gospel light 
 break upon his hitherto clouded soul ? How did he become so very 
 scrupulous all of a sudden ? Alas ! it is useless to disguise the fact; ail 
 history proclaims it, and Henry’s own conscience proclaimed it to him at 
 the time. As the poet has caustically, ,but truly said,— 
 
 “ The gospel light 
 First beamed from Anna Boleyn’s eyes !” 
 
 Tired of an aged and virtuous wife, the royal founder of Anglicanism 
 panted for new nuptials with another, whose youthful charms had 
 already captivated his heart, and whose wily arts had rendered her 
 inexorable to his wishes, except on the condition of supplanting the 
 lawful queen, and becoming herself his queenly consort. The Pontiff 
 was appealed to, to second the plan of the English king, and to grant 
 the necessary dispensation : but the Popes had never flattered the vices 
 of princes; and in this particular instance, Clement VII. would not 
 consent to sacrifice his conscience, to trample upon the holy laws of 
 God, and to be recreant to his duty towards a virtuous and much 
 injured woman. After protracting the affair for some years, during 
 which he tried every possible means to dissuade Henry from his purpose, 
 he was at length compelled to decide against the divorce, on which the 
 English king had already resolved. Henry became indignant; he 
 sacrilegiously usurped the office of head of the Church in England ; and 
 the majority of the English bishops, won over by intrigue, worn out by 
 harassing solicitations, or intimidated by menaces, were weak enough 
 to sanction his wicked conduct. 
 
 Such is the true history of the origin of the Anglican church. We 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 63 
 
 wish it joy of its first founder and pope ; — for Henry usurped the office 
 of Pope in England, seized on the first fruits of the benefices which had 
 hitherto been paid to the Roman Pontiffs, and pushed his p)apal prerogative 
 much farther than ever Pope had done before. Instead of the mild and 
 paternal authority of the Roman Pontiffs, who had ever been the 
 champions of the poor and of the oppressed against the rich and tyrants,, 
 the Anglican bishops had now to wear, rivited on their necks, an iron yoke 
 which they themselves had aided to forge. The sovereigns of England, 
 whether male or female, whether infants or of mature age, whether sane 
 in mind or idiotic, thus became absolute both in church and state ! 
 
 The only barrier to their tyranny was removed, and the liberties of 
 England, which had been established by Catholics three hundred years 
 before, now lay prostrate and crushed. 
 
 The champions of freedom, both civil and religious, were now doomed 
 to atone for their rashness with their blood. The royal prerogative now 
 became unlimited in its extent; it swallowed up every other element 
 of government; and the parliament of England, once the fearless 
 advocate of popular rights, now crouched with mean servility at the foot 
 of a tyrant! And England had to pass through all the horrors of repeated 
 civil wars and oceans of bloodshed, for one hundred and fifty years, ere 
 tlie kingly power could be again restrained within its ancient constitu¬ 
 tional limits, and her parliament could again assert the independence, 
 which had so strongly marked its proceedings in ’the good old days of 
 Catholicity. 
 
 This picture is not only not exaggerated, but it even falls short of the 
 truth, as any one must be convinced who has but glanced at the pages 
 of English history. Mr. Palmer tells us : — 
 
 “The convocation of the clergy in 1531 had acknowledged the king 
 to be head of the Church of England, as far as it is allowable by the 
 law of God;”^ and that “in virtue of this office, which Henry seems 
 to have understood in a different sense from that of the convocation, he 
 appointed Lord Cromwell his vicar general and visiter of monasteries,” 
 
 (fec.^ 
 
 A small portion of the truth here leaks out. Had he been disposed 
 to tell the whole truth, he would have stated, that this same Lord 
 Cromwell, from having been the son of a fuller, had, by pandering to 
 Henry’s passion, become the first lord of the realm, — placed over the 
 heads of all the princes both spiritual and temporal, and second only to 
 the king himself! He would have told us of the unworthy arts, by which 
 this creeping creature slandered the inmates of the monasteries, and 
 thus succeeded in seizing on their immense property; a large portion 
 of which he embezzled to his own uses, or that of his associates in the 
 sacrilegious robbery. He would have told us, how this same lay vicar ' ’ 
 general lorded it over the bishops, and compelled them to resign their 
 
 1 P. 160. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
64 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 authority, and to sue out new episcopal powers from the crown : * how 
 those bishops were servile enough to submit to this exaction, and humbiy 
 to lay their mitres at the foot of the throne ; and how the royal letters 
 patent, which contained tlie strange new episcopal commission, assigned 
 as a reason for this indulgence granted to the bisliops, “that the king’s 
 vicar general, on account of the multiplicity of business with which he 
 was loaded, could not be every where present, and that many inconve¬ 
 niences might arise, if delays and interruptions were admitted in the 
 exercise of his authority.” ^ 
 
 Alas ! for the sycophancy of the first Anglican bishops. How it 
 contrasts with the undaunted courage of the English bishops in the 
 good old Catholic times ! Where was then the spirit of an Anselm, of a 
 Langton, and of a Thomas a Becket ? Was there no man among the 
 English bishops of that day ? There was one, and but one, —we are 
 pained to avow it, — a venerable octogenarian, the cherished counselor 
 of Henry’s father, and his own early preceptor, Fisher, bishop of 
 Rochester : — honor to his gray hairs ! He would not sacrifice his 
 conscience at the bidding of a tyrant: and his head, which would not 
 bow to an unholy despotism, was struck ofi* by order of Henry ! The 
 despot had the heartlessness to taunt this venerable man, who in 
 cosnideration of his transcendent merits had just been named cardinal 
 by Pope Paul III., with this inhuman jeer : “ Paul may send him the 
 hat, I will take care that he have never a head to wear it on.” ’ 
 
 Another illustrious hero, perhaps the greatest man then in England, 
 fell a victim to Henry’s tyranny. Sir Thomas Moore, lately lord 
 chancellor of England, would not subscribe to the new doctrine of the 
 king’s'supremacy*. After a mock trial, in which all the forms of law 
 were openly set at defiance, he was condemned to die the death of a 
 traitor. And this hard lot befel every man, who had the conscience 
 and the courage tojesist Henry’s will, in this or in any other particular! 
 Protestants and Catholics were tied together and burnt at the same 
 stake, if they ventured to believe more or less than suited the royal 
 standard. No one can, or will even dare deny these facts ; and yet we 
 hear men coolly talking of Henry’s scruples ! 
 
 Is it possible, that a church, which originated under these circum¬ 
 stances, was the Church of Christ ? Is it credible, that that was the 
 Church of Christ, which came into existence at the bidding of a tyrant, 
 which changed in each successive reign according to the royal pleasure 
 and the will of the parliament, and the liturgy of which was moulded 
 and remoulded, time and again, according to the caprice of the sovereign, 
 male or female, who chanced to be reigning at the time ? 
 
 We know now what value to set on the oft repeated assertion of our 
 author, that by the general consent and voice of the English bishops 
 V and clergy, “ the ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope over England was 
 
 1 See Lingard’s History of England — Henry VIII., p. 178. First American edition. Philadel¬ 
 phia, 182<. 2 Ibid. 3 Lingard, ibid. p. 171. 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 65 
 
 regularly and lawfully suppressed/” This is, in fact, according to his 
 theory, the distinguishing feature of the English reformation ; this the 
 greatest boast of its advocates. These contend that the English church 
 reformed itself by its own free and spontaneous act; and that in asserting 
 its independence of Rome it merely re-esUib’ished its ancient rights. 
 We have already seen how eniirely unfounded is tlie pretension set forth 
 in the last clause. It is easy to show that the other assertion, on which 
 the theory mainly rests, is a mere assumption, wholly unsiistained by 
 evidence. 
 
 Was that a free consent, which was extorted by menaces, backed by 
 the halter and the stake ? Was that a regular and lawful proceeding, 
 which was every where marked by violence? The English bishops had 
 but the alternative ; to subscribe to the supremacy of Henry, or to lay'’ 
 their heads on the block. Most of them chose the former, yet not 
 without great and manifest i*eluctance. The opposition to the arbitrary 
 proceedings of the king and of his vicar general, was both wide spread 
 and deeply seated ; but its murmurs were soon stifled in the blood of 
 those who thus had the courage even to whisper dissent. 
 
 To silence this opposition, Henry issued injunctions ** that the very 
 word Pojje should be carefully erased out of all books employed in the 
 public worship ; that every schoolmaster should diligently inculcate the 
 new doctrine to the children entrusted to his care ; that all clergymen, 
 from the bishop to the curate, should on every Sunday and holiday 
 teach that the king was the true head of the Church; and that the 
 authority hitherto exercised by the Popes was a usurpation, tamely 
 admitted by the carelessness or timidity of his predecessors ; and that 
 the sheriffs in each county should keep a vigilant eye over the conduct 
 of the clergy, and should report to the council the names, not only of 
 those who might neglect these duties, but also of those who might 
 perform them indeed, but tciVA coldness and indifference^ ^ 
 
 Was there ever tyranny like this ? We know of scarce!}^ a parallel to 
 it, save in the similar proceedings which were adopted towards the 
 bishops and clergy in the subsequent reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth. 
 If there is any truth in history, or any reliance to be put in- the statute 
 book of England, the whole reformation in that country was the offspring* 
 of guilty passion, and the work of violence and tyranny. Had there 
 been in that kino-dom a o-reater number of such men as Fisher and 
 
 O O 
 
 Moore, or had the English bishops possessed aught of the spirit which 
 did so much honor to many of the monks, the bluff' old tyrant, Henry, 
 and his mischievous and barren progeny,— Edward and Elizabeth— 
 might have been foiled in their wicked attempt to break up Christian 
 unity. 
 
 Everyone knows the noble reply of the two friars, Peyto and Elstow, 
 to th<' barbarous threat of Cromwell — “ that thev deserved to be enclosed 
 
 1 P. 160 
 
 2 Statute 26 Henry VIII., 1. 3, 13. Wilk. Con. iii. 780—782. Apml lingiird. zi>id. p. 168. 
 
 K2 8 
 
66 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 in a sack and thrown into the Thames.” “ Threaten these thinirs.” 
 they said, “to rich and dainty folk, which are clothed in purple, faro 
 deliciously, and have their chiefest hopes in this world. We esteem them 
 not. We are joyful, that for the discharge of our duty we are driven 
 hence. With thanks to God, we know that the way to heaven is as 
 short by water as by land, and therefore care not which way we go.”' 
 
 We have not a doubt, that had the monasteries in England been less 
 wealthy, they would never have been suppressed; and that the body of 
 English bishops would never have apostatized as they did, had they not 
 unhappily belonged to the class of “ rich and dainty folk?” The wealth 
 munificently bestowed on the Church by Catholic piety during the middle 
 ages, and which, before the reformation, had been employed in erecting 
 noble edifices to religion and to charity, thus became ultimately injurious 
 in its influence on the English church. It was a rich bait to the avarice 
 of those who clamored for reform, and the fear of its loss was a powerful 
 inducement to the bishops and higher clergy to side with Henry VIII. 
 The apostacy once consummated, this same mass of wealth was a golden 
 chain of iniquity, which strongly and sweetly bound the Anglican bishops 
 to the new order of things. 
 
 And we really know of no means by which the Anglican church can 
 be again restored to Catholic unity, but the breaking of this same chain 
 by the state, and the abandonment of that church to its own resources. 
 Timid Puseyism would then probably ripen into open Catholicism ; its 
 crooked ways would then be made straight; and its many tortuous wind¬ 
 ings would give place to the one straight path which leads to the holy 
 city of God. Till the English church establishment be broken up, — 
 till this great fountain of evil be removed, we are far from being sanguine 
 in the hope, that England is likely to return to the bosom of Catholic 
 unity. Here and there, a disinterested and generous individual may 
 break his chains, and assert his independence of a corrupt establishment; 
 but, at least humanly speaking, we see little reason to believe that this 
 blessed result will become general in England. 
 
 We should be endless were we to notice all the unfounded and absurd 
 'Statements of our author on the English reformation. He says : 
 
 “ On the death of Henry VIII., in 1647, and the accession of Edward 
 
 VI., the work of the reformation proceeded freely.The clergy 
 
 •were permitted to marry, and the public prayers were translated from 
 t!ie old Latin offices of the English church, with various improvements(!) 
 from the Greek and oriental liturgies.”^ 
 
 The permission of the clergy to marry was a decided improvement, 
 not only on the ancient discipline of the Catholic Church, but also on 
 the example and earnest advice of St. Paul.* Henry VIII., though he 
 dearly prized the privilege of a young wife for himself, was so cruel a.s 
 
 1 Apud Lingard. ibid. p. 169. 
 
 2 V 161. 
 
 3 See 1 Cor. vii, entire chapter. 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 67 
 
 to deny this indulgence to his clergy but the “boy king,” it seems, 
 was more tender-hearted I 
 
 The improvements in the English liturgy were indeed many and 
 various : first, the idea of the real presence and of a true sacrifice, which 
 had been deemed essential to every previous liturgy, whether Latin, 
 Greek, or Oriental, was carefully excluded; and secondly, the liturgy 
 itself was studiously amended at least three times, just as the English 
 parliament happened to become more enlightened ! There was surely no 
 lack of improvement! 
 
 It is really curious to observe, how our author laments the return of 
 the Anglican church to Catholic unity under Mary.^ The voluntary 
 consent of the parliament and bishops; which had “regularly and law¬ 
 fully” suppressed the power, of the Pope, was incompetent, it seems, to 
 restore that same power: the bishops who were then put into the sees which 
 had been desecrated by intruders under the reign of Edward VI., were 
 themselves but “ popish intruders,” who, under the “illustrious Eliza¬ 
 beth, were expelled by the civil power and under this virgin queen, 
 the Church of England was again established on a permanent basis ! 
 We scarcely have so poor an opinion of Mr. Palmer’s intellect, as to 
 suppose, even for a moment, that he could really have been serious while 
 writing out these palable absurdities. 
 
 If any thing can surpass the cool assurance of the following passages, 
 we must say, that we have not chanced to meet with it in all our reading. 
 We give them for what they are worth ; merely premising, that in the 
 first he is speaking of the bull of St. Pius V., which excommunicated 
 Elizabeth and her adherents : — 
 
 “ This bull caused the schism in England ; for the popish party, which 
 had continued in communion with the Church of England up to that 
 time, during the eleven past years of Elizabeth’s reign, now began to 
 separate themselves. Bedingfield, Cornwallis, and Silyarde, were the 
 first popish recusants; and the date of the Romanists in England, as a 
 distinct sect or community, may be fixed in the year 1570.” 
 
 “ King James I. wisely (!) discouraged the Roman schism, and forbade 
 the residence of its bishops, priests, and Jesuits in his dominions ; but 
 under his successor Charles I., a relaxation of this wholesome severity 
 encourao-ed the schismatics to insult and disturb the Church, and ulti- 
 mately, in 1641, to massacre in cold blood one hundred and fifty thousand 
 of its adherents, and to break into insurrection. 
 
 • • ■ ‘ 
 
 We had also intended to insert here another extract® breathing a similar 
 
 spirit, in which Mr. Palmer clearly approves of the late high-handed 
 tyranny of the king of Prussia in imprisoning some Catholic bishops; 
 and we had also purposed to examine his flippant statements in regard 
 to the opinions of the universities in the matter of Henry’s divorce. 
 But want of space compels us to omit the former, and for the latter, 
 we must be content with a reference, in the margin, to Dr. Lingard’s 
 
 1 Cranuier, however, outwitted him in this. 
 
 2 P. 162. 3 F. 163. 4 P. 170. 6 P. 200. 
 
68 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 luminous proofs on the subject.* He abundantly establishes the fact, 
 that the opinions of all the universities, including the two in England, 
 were obtained by bribery, or were reluctantly given, after the practising, 
 by Henry’s agents, of the vilest arts and the lowest trickery. 
 
 We must hasten on in our rapid notice of Mr. Palmer’s statements. 
 He devotes four pages'^ to an account of the “churches of Ireland,” — 
 and such an account! We sincerely believe that there is nothing to 
 equal it, in reckless mendacity and utter atrocity, in all the volumes 
 which the press has sent forth since it was first put in operation. He 
 begins his history of the reformation in Ireland, in these words: 
 
 “ The churches of Ireland have been suffering severely from the 
 persecutions of Romanists for many years past.” 
 
 And he ends it with this memorable passage : 
 
 “ From that period (1798), the Romish party has acquired great po¬ 
 litical power, and the church has been almost continually pei^ecuted, 
 especially within the last few years, in which the clergy have been reduced 
 nearly to starvation ; some have been murdered, and many placed in 
 peril of their lives. To add to their afflictions, the government, in 1833, 
 suppressed ten of the bishoprics on pretense of requiring their revenues 
 for the support of ecclesiastical buildings ; although the bishops of Ireland 
 in a body protested against such an act, and offered to pay the amount 
 required from the incomes of their sees, provided that so great an injury 
 were not done to the cause of religion.”^ * 
 
 The reader may judge of the spirit which pervades the whole account 
 from these two specimens. Only think of it ! The miserable faction of 
 self-called reformers,-which was thrust upon Ireland by open violence, 
 and by that government too which has ever been the most deadly enemy 
 of her dearest rights, both temporal and eternal; — the faction which has, 
 for the last three hundred years, been sitting, like an incubus, upon 
 the green -ocean Isle, weighing down her energies, and crushing her 
 people in the dust;— the faction which has been draining her treasure, 
 and, vampire like, sucking her very blood; — the faction which has 
 sowed religious dissensions and civil feuds broadcast on her lovely soil;— 
 the faction which has reveled in the misery and wretchedness of her 
 people, and wantoned in the blood of her murdered sons and daughters: 
 — this same miserable faction now has the effrontery to stand forth, and 
 unblushingly to cry out persecution ! 0 shame ! 0 shame ! ! 
 
 If it was a bitter curse for Ireland, when the Saxon first set Yoot upon 
 her green soil, it was a curse a hundred fold more dreadful, when the 
 myrmidons of the reformation seized on and desecrated her beautiful 
 churches, and after having plundered them and destroyed her monas¬ 
 teries and houses of education, sat down with complacency amidst the 
 ruins they had caused. And now, for the children of these sacrilegious 
 spoilers of all that she deemed sacred and held dear, to have the assu- 
 
 1 History of England —Henry VlII. — p. 135, fit. and note D. i 
 
 2 P. 167, et. seg. 
 
 3 P. 170 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 69 
 
 ranee to come forth, and to taunt her, whom they have so atrociously 
 injured, with persecution, is really too bad, — it is intolerable. The 
 less the Anglican church says about its doings in Ireland, the better for 
 its advocates. The very name of Ireland should raise a blush upon the 
 cheek of every Anglican, — if English Protestant cheeks can blush for 
 any atrocity of which England has been guilty towards that unhappy 
 country. 
 
 It would be easy for us to prove, that almost every important statement 
 which our author makes on this subject, is not only wholly unfounded, 
 but utterly false. We will notice only a few out of many. Of the first 
 attempt to introduce the reformation into Ireland, under Henry VIII., 
 he says: 
 
 “Henry VIII. caused the papal jurisdiction to be abolished, in 1637, 
 by the parliament (Irish). The bishops and clergy generally assented (!) 
 and several reforms (!) took place during this and the next reign.” ‘ 
 
 Dr, Lingard, himself an Englishman, proves by incontestable evidence, 
 that “ Henry’s innovations in religion were viewed with equal abhor¬ 
 rence by the indigenous Irish, and the descendants of the English 
 colonists that the parliament which abolished the jurisdiction of the 
 Pope was not the true representative of Irish opinion, but the mere echo 
 of English feelings,— a miserable body of mere creatures of the English 
 court, which “one day confirmed the marriage of the king with Anne 
 Boleyn, and the next, in consequence of the arrival of a courier, declared 
 it to have been invalid from the beginning;” that it was impossible to 
 enforce among the Irish people this parliamentary enactment; and that 
 “the two races combined in defence of their common faith,’' causing 
 “repeated insurrections.”^ All this he proves from the Irish statute 
 book, and from other authentic documents ; and, so far as we know, his 
 statement on this subject has never been controverted ; his proofs have 
 certainly never been met, nor his arguments answered. 
 
 Our author tells us, that — 
 
 “ When Elizabeth succeeded, the former laws were revived, the papal 
 power again rejected, and the royal supremacy and the English ritual 
 again introduced. These regulations were approved by seventeen out 
 of nineteen Irish bishops in the parliament of 1560, and by the rest of 
 the bishops and clergy who took the oath of supremacy, and remained 
 in the possession of their benefices. The people also generally acqui¬ 
 esced, and continued to attend on divine service for several years.” ^ 
 
 We unhesitatingly pronounce all that is contained in the two last 
 sentences utterly untrue, which qualification we apply with still greater 
 emphasis to almost everything that follows on the subject. Dr. Lingard 
 shows from the statute book of Ireland, that “both the nobility and the 
 people abhorred the change in religion, and that the new statutes were 
 carried into execution in those places only where they could he enforced 
 
 1 Page 167. 
 
 2 History of England—Henry Vlll.—pp. 246, 247. 
 
 3 Page 167. 
 
70 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 cU the point of the bayonet” ‘ Eyen the heartless tyrant, Henry VIII., 
 could not, either by menaces or bribery, induce more than one of the 
 Irish bishops to apostatize,— Brown, archbishop of Dublin,— and he 
 was an Englishman by birth.^ Under Edward VI., this supple courtier- 
 prelate induced four other'Irish bishops to become as reckless as him¬ 
 self;^ but in both cases, the archbishops of Armagh,—Cromer and Dow- 
 dal,— as well as the great body of the Irish bishops, and clergy remained 
 faithful to the ancient Church and the holy See. Is it to be believed, 
 that during the intervening reign of the Catholic Queen Mary, the Irish 
 Catholic bishops became more inclined to apostatize? 
 
 Mr. Palmer devotes an entire chapter'^ to rather lengthy sketches of 
 the lives of various Anglican saints and divines. Nicholas Ridley, 
 the martyr, stands at the head of the list. He winds up his account of 
 this man with the following pious rhapsody: 
 
 •‘Thus died the illustrious martyr — or rather thus did he enter 
 eternal life ; and it may be said with truth that never, since the days of 
 the apostles, was there a nobler manifestation of Christian faith and 
 heroism. It was worthy of the brightest days of the primitive Church ; 
 and not even Polycarp, in the amphitheater of Smyrna, exceeded the 
 glory of Nicholas Ridley.” ^ 
 
 We apprehend that Poly carp did not change his religious creed, like 
 Ridley; nor, like him, assist in per.secuting others for believing more or 
 less than himself. Lingard tells us, on the authority of the State Papers 
 and of Wilkins, that “as under Henry VIII. Ridley had been employed 
 to examine and detect sacramentaries, so, under the son of Henry. 
 (Edward VI.,) he sate in judgment on the condemnation of heretics.* 
 We nowhere read that Polycarp retracted his belief to save his life, as 
 Ridley did in prison;^ much less that he ever turned traitor to his law'ful 
 > sovereign, and sought to stir up civil war. It was for this crime of 
 treason chiefly, that Ridley suffered death. He had preached openly 
 against Queen Mary, at St. Paul’s Cross, London; and he was one of 
 the most influential of those traitors who assisted in setting up the 
 unfortunate Lady Jane Grey. He may do for an Anglican saint; he 
 could never pass the rigid ordeal requisite for canonization in the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 By the way, why did not Mr. Palmer let us have a sketch of the great 
 patriarch of Anglicanism,—a sort of spiritual vicar general under 
 Henry VIIL, and the ever pliant tool of this real founder of the 
 Anglican church, — Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury? 
 Was this unscrupulous courtier too bad to be placed even on the 
 calendar of Protestant saints ? Was the Oxford divine frig'htened bv 
 the striking likeness drawn of him by the distinguished Protestant 
 
 1 Klizaboth, p. 95. Irish Statutes, 2 Eliz. 1,2, 3. 
 
 i I.ingard, sMp c^.—Ileur) VIII.—p 246 3*lbid—Edward VI.—p. 78. 4 Ch.ip. xxiii. ' 
 
 6 Page 179. 6 History of England, vol. vii, p ]95. Edit. Dolmau, London, 1845. 
 
 7 He subsequently retracted this retraction, and died with courage. 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 71 
 
 writer, Macaulay? He was almost as great a saint as Ridley; in fact, 
 in many respects the former far outstripped the latter. 
 
 We subjoin Macaulay’s estimate of the English reformation in general, 
 and of the character of Cranmer in particular. :— 
 
 “ They (the English Reformers) were,— a king, whose character may 
 be best described, by saying, that he was despotism itself personitied ; 
 unprincipled ministers ; a rapacious aristocracy ; a servile parliament. 
 Such were the instruments by which England was delivered from the 
 yoke of Rome. The work, which had been begun by Henry, tlie 
 murderer of his wives, was continued by Somerset, the murderer of his 
 brother ; and completed by Elizabeth, the murderer of lier guest. 
 
 “If we consider Cranmer merely as a statesman, he will not appear a 
 much worse man than Wolsey, Gardiner, Cromwell, or Somerset; but 
 when an attempt is made to .set him up as a saint, it is scai'cely possible 
 for any man of sense, who knows the history of the times well, to 
 preserve his gravity. The shameful origin of his history, common 
 enough in the scandalous chronicles of courts, seems strangely out of 
 place in a hagiology. Cranmer rose into favor by serving Heni-y in the 
 disgraceful affair of his lirst divorce. He promoted the marriage of 
 Anna Boleyn with the king. On a frivolous pretence, he pronounced 
 it null and void. On a pretence, if possible still more frivolous, he 
 dissolved the ties which bound the shameless tyrant to Anne of Cleves. 
 He attached himself to Cromwell, while the fortunes of Cromwell 
 flourished; he voted for cutting off’ his head without a trial, when the 
 tide of royal favor turned. He conformed backwards and forwards, as 
 the king changed his mind. While Henry lived, he assisted in 
 condemning to the ffames those who denied the doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation; when Henry died, he found out that the doctrine was false. He 
 was, however, not at a loss for people to burn. The authority of his 
 station, and of his gray hairs, was employed to overcome the disgust, 
 with which an intelligent and virtuous child regarded persecution. 
 
 “ Intolerance is always bad; but the sanguinaiy intolerance of a man 
 who thus wavered in his creed, excites a loathing to which it is difficult 
 to give vent, without calling foul names. Equally false to political and 
 to religious obligations, he was first the tool of Somerset, and then the 
 tool of Northumberland. When the former wished to put his own 
 brother to death, without even the form of a trial, he'found a ready 
 instrument in Cranmer. In spite of the canon law, which forbade a 
 churchman to take any part in matters of blood, the archbishop signed 
 the warrant for the atrocious sentence. When Somerset had been, in his 
 turn, destroyed, his destroyer received the support of Cranmer in his 
 attempt to change the course of the succession. 
 
 “ The apology made for him by his admirers, only renders his conduct 
 more contemptible. He complied, it is .said, against his better judgment, 
 because he could not withstand the entreaties of Edward ! A holy 
 prelate of sixty, one would think, might be better employed by the bed¬ 
 side of a dying child, than in committing crimes at the request of his 
 disciple. If he had shown half as much firmness when Edward 
 requested him not to commit murder, he might have saved the countiy 
 from one of the greatest misfortunes that it ever underwent, lie 
 became, from whatever motive, the accomplice ot the worthless Dudho . 
 The virtuous scruples of another young and amiable mind were to be 
 overcome. As Edward had been forced into persecution, Jane was to 
 be seduced into usurpa ion. No transaction in our annals is more 
 
72 
 
 CHURCH HIS T 0 R Y . 
 
 unjustifiable than this. To the part which Cranmer, and unfortunately 
 some better men than Cranmer, took in this most repreliensible scheme, 
 much of the severity with which Protestants were afterward treated, 
 must, in fairness, be ascribed. 
 
 “The plot failed, Popery triumphed, and Cranmer recanted. Most 
 people look upon his recantation as a single blemish on an honorable 
 life,—the frailty of an unguarded moment. But, in fact, it was in strict 
 accordance with the system on which he had constantly acted. It was 
 a part of a regular habit. It was not tlie first recantation that he had 
 made; and in all probability, if it had answered his purpose, it would 
 not have been the last. We do not blame him for not choosing to be 
 burnt alive. It is no very severe reproach to any person, that he does not 
 possess heroic fortitude. But, surely, a man who liked the fire so little, 
 should have had some sympathy for others. A persecutor who inflicts 
 nothing which he is not ready to endure, deserves some respect ; but, 
 when a man who loves his doctrine more than the lives of his neighbors, 
 loves his own little finger better than his doctrines, a very simple argu¬ 
 ment a fortiori, will enable us to estimate the amount of his benevolence. 
 
 “ But his martyrdom, it is said, redeemed everything. It is extraor¬ 
 dinary, that so much ignorance should exist on this subject. The fact 
 i's, if a martyr be a man who chooses to die rather than renounce his 
 opinions, Cranmer was no more a martyr than Dr. Dodd. He died 
 solely because he could not help it. He never retracted his recantation, 
 till he found he had made it in vain. If Mary had sufiered him to live, 
 we suspect that he would have heard mass, and received absolution like 
 a good Catholic, till the accession of Elizabeth; and that he would then 
 have purchased, by another apostacy, the power of burning men better 
 and braver than himself.’' 
 
 In this whole matter of Anglican saints, we cannot fail to observe, 
 even in the highly-wrought portraits of our author, a sad want of 
 those qualities which, in the Catholic times, invariably marked the true 
 saint: — humility of heart and action, mortification, disinterestedness, 
 self-devotion, penitential austerities,— such as fasting, long prayers and 
 corporal maceration, — and an entire abstraction from the world. 
 
 Mr. Palmer himself furnishes us ample materials for making this 
 comparison. Let the reader only peruse his well-written sketclies of 
 the lives of Saints Francis Xavier, Charles Borromeo, Francis de Sales, 
 and Vincent de Paul,’ and compare their lives and conduct, as there set 
 forth, with the lives and conduct of the Anglican saints alluded to, and 
 lie will at once detect which is the genuine, and which the counterfeit. 
 We wish that our limits permitted us to make the comparison in full ; 
 but we must forego this pleasure, and leave the readers of Mr. Palmer’s 
 book to make it for themselves. 
 
 There is, however, one point on which we must dwell for a few 
 moments, ere v.^e bid a final adieu to Mr. Palmer’s “ Compendious 
 Ecclesiastical History;” we mean the downward tendency of Protost- 
 ■antism, even of Anglican Protestantism, as admitted by himself. 
 Catholic writers have often declared that infidelity is of Protestant 
 origin; and we would ask no better proofs of this assertion than those 
 
 1 Chapter xxv. 
 
 / 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 73 
 
 afforded by our historian’s own avowals. We will alle<>-e a few ot his 
 testimonies bearing on this point. He speaks of the practical tendency 
 of Lutheranism as follows : 
 
 I 
 
 “In the middle of the following century (the eighteenth), a spirit of 
 false liberality and skepticism began to infect tlie Lutheran communities. 
 The Confession of Augsburg, and other formularies of the sixieenth 
 century, to which their ministers had subscribed, lost their auihority, 
 and an unbounded freedom of opinion on all points was encouraged. 
 The result was, the rise of a party headed by the notorious JSemler, 
 who, under the mask of Christianity, explained away all the doctrines 
 of revelation, denied the miracles and otiier facts of sacred history, and 
 subverted the genuineness and authenticity of tlie Bible. This intidelity 
 , became dreadfully prevalent among the Protestants of Germany, and 
 Denmark, in the course of the last and present centuries; the universi¬ 
 ties were full of it, the ministers of religion tainted with it; and the 
 Lutheran faith seems under an eclipse, from whence we fervently pray 
 that it may be delivered.” ' 
 
 The Calvinistic branch of the reformation did not bear any better 
 fruits. Here is Mr. Palmer’s testimony; 
 
 “ It may be observed, in general, of the reformed communities in 
 Switzerland, France, atid the United l^rovinces, that they have too 
 generally fallen away from the doctrines originally believed by them, 
 into the Socinian or Arian heresies.” ^ 
 
 One would have thought, that at least the hopeful branch of the 
 reformation, established by parliament, and by the bayonet,^ halter, and 
 stake in England, would not have suffered a similar degeneracy. Let 
 us hear what our historian says on this subject,— and surely he is an 
 unexceptionable witness. 
 
 “ In 1717, a controversy arose on occasion of the writings of Hoadley, 
 bishop of Bangor, in which he maintained that it was needless to believe 
 any particular creed, or to be united to any particular church ; and that 
 sincerity or our own persuasion of the correctness of our own opinions 
 (wheiher well or ill ‘founded), is sufficient. These doctrines were 
 evidently calculated to subvert the necessity of believing the articles of 
 tlie Christian faith, and to justify all classes of schismatics or separatists 
 from the Church. The convocation deemed these opinions so mis¬ 
 chievous, that a committee was appointed to select propositions from 
 Hoadley’s books, and to procure their censure; but before, his trial 
 could take place the convocation was prorogued by an arbitrary exercise 
 of the royal authority, and has not been permitted to deliberate since. 
 The temporal government, influenced by the schismatics, protected and 
 advanced Hoadley and several persons of similar principles. In 1766, 
 Archdeacon Blackburn, who was supposed to be an Arian, anonymously 
 assailed the practice of subscribing the articles; and in 1772, a body of 
 clergy and laymen petitioned parliament to put an end to it; but their 
 request was refused. Many of these petitioners were secret disbelievers 
 in some of the Christian doctrines.” 
 
 1 Pp. 150,151. 2 P. 152 
 
 3 In Edward’s reign, German troops were employed to enforce the reformation, and to crush an 
 extensive insurrection in Devonshire and Norfolk. 4 P. 105. 
 
 L 
 
74 
 
 CHURCH II I S T 0 R Y . 
 
 A humiliating avowal, truly, for an Anglican to be compelled to make ! 
 
 At one fell stroke the royal head of the Anglican church swept away 
 forever the convocation of bishops ; and for more than a hundred years, 
 this boasted “ church Catholic ” has been voiceless, and a mere dumb 
 slave, doomed to do the bidding of an inexorable task master. She has 
 been well punished for having cast off, in an evil hour for her, the mild 
 and paternal authority of Rome. She has, unlike the Israelites of old, 
 gone out of the blooming land of the Catholic paradise, and entered 
 again into the dark land of Egyptian servitude. She is a hopeless slave, 
 bound hand and foot: she has no life even, but that which the capricious 
 whim of her royal master or mistress may think proper to breathe into 
 her nostrils ! We do not wonder that she is beginning to grow weary » 
 
 of her bondage, and to sigh again for her former independence. It is, 
 in hxct, to this aspiration after spiritual freedom, that we are mainly 
 indebted for the recent Oxford movement. Let us hear what Mr. 
 Palmer, — who ought to know, — testifies on the matter in question : — 
 
 “ The church has been suffering much for a long time from appoint¬ 
 ments to its offices made from unworthy motives. The bishoprics and 
 other dignities Avere* bestowed by the ministers of the crown on men 
 distinguished only by birth or connections. Patronage, in general, was 
 distributed on low and worldly considerations. Theological learning 
 received no encouragement, and active zeal was viewed with jealousy as 
 an approximation to Methodism .... The aspect of the times has since, 
 contributed to stimulate the activity of the church. The Aveakness of 
 the temporal government, and the influence Avhich parties hostile to ilie 
 church have for the last twenty years exercised over it, have taught the 
 church to depend less on the protection of the state than on the divine 
 blessing,” &c,^ 
 
 God grant that the unholy alliance may be forever dissolved, and then 
 we may hope for England’s conversion ! 
 
 It is curious to trace to its proper origin that modern infidelity Avhich 
 lately desolated France, and threatened to ingulf Christianity itself. 
 Nothing is more certain than that it originated in the principles of 
 Protestantism, and first in Protestant countries. Mr. Palmer himself 
 will aid us in proving this position, and in establishing the two‘following 
 propositions : —First, that in point of time, infidelity obtained a footing 
 in England and Germany much sooner than it did in France ; and second, 
 that those who subsequently propagated it in France, had imbibed their 
 false principles, and learned the specious sophistry by which they sought 
 to maintain them, in Protestant England or Germany, but principally in 
 England. 
 
 In support of the first proposition, the truth of Avhich every one who 
 has but glanced at history must admit, Ave have the authority of Mr. 
 Palmer : — 
 
 “ England had been alreadv disgraced bv the Avritings of some 
 
 1 Have been would hare been, perhaps, more graminatical , and the same remark should be made 
 %s to the following clauses. 2 1’. 1G6. 
 
THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 
 
 75 
 
 unbelievers ; but the works of Herbert and Bolingbroke, of Collins and 
 Trindal, had produced little effect on the good sense and religious 
 principles of the English nation.”' 
 
 We deem the latter assertion of very doubtful authority. It is well 
 known that many of the bishops and clergy themselves, whom our author 
 praises for their able advocacy of Christianity,'^ were tainted with infidel 
 principles. Mr. Palmer admits all this, as we have already seen ; and 
 we have likewise heard how he speaks of rationalism and infidelity in 
 Germany and other Protestant countries. 
 
 The second proposition is no less certain. It was in England, as the 
 associate and boon companion of Bolingbroke and other English infidels, 
 that Voltaire conceived his impious purpose of attempting the destruction 
 of Christianity. This is a very important fact, for which we have again 
 Mr. Palmer’s testimony : — 
 
 “ After he (Voltaire) had left college, he associated only with persons 
 of infamous morals ; and having published some infidel opinions, which 
 gave offense to the ruling powers of France, he retired to England, 
 where he became acquainted with several unbelievers like himself. Here 
 he formed his resolution to destroy Christianity; and on his return to 
 Paris in 1730, he made no secret of his design and his hopes. 
 
 Here we perceive that a noxious weed, plucked from the fertile garden 
 of Catholic France, was carefully replanted in England, where it was 
 nurtured to maturity ; whence it was again, in an evil day, transplanted 
 into France. Voltaire plied the very arguments, and used almost the 
 identical language, which had been employed, with so much effect by 
 the early reformers, for exciting popular indignation against Rome. 
 Let us hear our author : — 
 
 “ Voltaire invited men to forsake their religion, by promising them 
 liberty of thought. He declared that ‘Nothing was so contemptible and 
 miserable in his eyes, as to see one man have recourse to another in 
 matters of fiiith, or to ask what he ought to believe.’ Reason, liberty 
 and philosophy, were continually in the mouths of Voltaire and 
 D’Alembert.”'* 
 
 It is remarkable, that when Voltaire was again under the necessity 
 of leavinof France, he found an asvlum in Protestant Prussia and Switzer- 
 land. There seemed to exist a certain congenial feeling between him 
 and the leaders of the Protestant party. ' • 
 
 Mr. Palmer bears evidence also to the rapid spread of infidel principles 
 among the crowned heads and the higher orders, in most Protestant 
 countries of Europe. 
 
 “ Infidelity now spread rapidly through France and through every 
 part of the coMtinent of Europe ; several of the crowned heads were 
 more or less favorable. The empress of Russia ; the kings of Prussia, 
 Denmark, Poland, Sweden, and all the princes of Germany, were either 
 admirers of Voltaire, or avowed infidels.”^ 
 
 Our historian scarcely does justice to the Catholic clergy of France 
 1 P. 219 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 P 220. 6 P. 221. 
 
V 
 
 76 CHURCHHISTORY. • 
 
 during the revolution; and he lays too much stress on the apostacy of a 
 few among their number. Yet he cannot help avowing that — 
 
 ‘‘The majorit}^ of the Roman clergy throughout Europe retained their 
 faith, and, under the most grievous afflictions and persecutions for the 
 name of Christ, evinced an increased measure of zeal and piety. 
 
 We doubt very much, whether the Protestant clergy of the Anglican 
 establishment would have stood the fiery ordeal half so well. We never 
 yet heard of one of these “rich and dainty folk.” who coveted the 
 crown of martyrdom, or who was willing to die when he could avoid it; 
 though we have read of many among them, who with remarkable 
 liberality, were willing to bestow upon others that crown which was too 
 thorny for their own delicate brows. During the horrors of the French 
 revolution, hundreds and thousands of the French clergy and of religious 
 men and women cheerfully laid down their lives for the faith, in the 
 midst of the most ’excruciating tortures ; but we have not yet heard of 
 07ie Protestant clergyman, who during that whole period received the 
 crown of martyrdom. If there was one, history is wholly silent on the 
 subject. How are we to explain this singular phenomenon, but on the 
 ground that modern infidelity is the daughter of Protestantism,—a daugh¬ 
 ter degenerate indeed, but still cherishing a tender feeling for her parent. 
 
 We have now completed our very rapid notice of Palmer’s “Compen¬ 
 dious Ecclesiastical History.” As we have already intimated more than 
 once, we have been compelled to pass over in silence many things upon 
 which we had originally intended to animadvert. Our limits have 
 necessarily confined us to a very brief review of the more prominent 
 assertions of the book. We think we have said enough, however, to 
 enable our readers to form some idea of the Oxfordite’s Ecclesiastical 
 History, as well as of the accuracy, learning, and impartiality of his 
 Right Reverend editor and note-maker. 
 
 1 P.222. 
 
 
 
IV. LITERATURE AND THE ARTS IN 
 THE MIDDLE AGES.* 
 
 Importance of the subject — Writers who hare treated it—Division — A Colossus falling — In¬ 
 cursions of the Northmen—A deluge—heautiful Italy—Awful devastation — New dynasties — 
 Christianity triumphant over barbarism—Civilization—Literary history—Tenth century—Gra¬ 
 dual revival—Its causes—Golden age of Leo X.—Latin language in liturgy—And the .Monastic 
 institute—Elevation of woman—Modern languages—And Poetry—Paper—Art of Printing- 
 Illuminated manuscripts—Universities—Schools of Law and Medicine—Musical Notes—Organs— 
 Bells—Mariners’ Compass—Geographical discoveries—Commerce—First Bank—Post Office—News¬ 
 papers—Spectacles—Gunpowder—Stone Coal—Arithmetical Numbers—Algebra—Glass—Stained 
 Glas.s—Agriculture—Botany—Clocks—Painting revived—Silk introduced—Gothic Style of Archi¬ 
 tecture—Leaning Tower of Pisa—Conclusion. 
 
 Literature and the Arts during the middle ages supply a theme at 
 once vast and important: vast, because it comprises a period of nearly 
 one thousand years ; and important, because it exhibits the rise and pro¬ 
 gress to perfection, of institutions intimately connected with civilization 
 and political liberty. That period was the nursery of nations, the parent 
 of civilization and of empire. From the partial chaos of those ages, 
 sprang into existence systems of government, which, by their harmony 
 and adaptation to the wants of mankind, are the admiration of the present 
 century. 
 
 The attention of the literary world has been lately awakened to the 
 importance of this subject. Italy, as usual, pioneered the way. About 
 the middle of the last century, the learned Muratori published, in thirty 
 huge folio volumes, the hitherto inedited works of the middle ages, to 
 which he annexed copious and learned commentaries of his own. This 
 herculean labor was followed by another work from the same author, in 
 which this giant of modern literature spread out, in six large folio volumes 
 of Essays, the results of his researches into the manners, customs, and 
 antiquities of that period. The very vastness of this work, as well as the 
 size of its tomes, would make one of our modern literati, who loves 
 meao'er volumes with fine covers, shudder with horror ! Muratori was 
 followed by Tiraboschi, another illustrious Italian, whose classical and 
 extensive History of Italian Literature, has, I think, no equal, and even 
 no parallel in any other language. These works constitute a complete 
 repertory, where the studious inquirer into the history of the middle 
 ages may find all that he can reasonably ask for. Among the Germans 
 who have labored to illustrate this subject, we may name Frederick and 
 
 * A Lecture delivered some years ago in Le.xington, Kv.; and subsequently before 
 
 the Catliolic. Institute of Baltimore and the Meehanics’ Institute of Louisville, in 1854. 
 
 L2 77 
 
78 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 William Schlegel, Meiners,' Eichorn,^ Heeren,® ; and among more recent 
 writers, Voigt and Hurter,'* learned Protestant divines. The French 
 have also done much in this field; it is sufficient for our purpose to 
 name Michaud’s History of the Crusades, and to allude to some learned 
 articles in a periodical work now published in France,—and which 
 would reflect honor on any country,—“ The Annals of Christian Philo¬ 
 sophy.” Among English writers, Hallam and Maitland have, perhaps, 
 succeeded better than any others ; though their works, learned and 
 excellent as they are in many respects, are but pigmies compared to 
 some of those named above. 
 
 The beginning and end of the period called the Middle Ages, has been 
 variously assigned by chronologists and historians. We prefer, as the 
 most natural and conformable to the great outlines of history, the opinion 
 which dates the commencement of that period from the downfall of the 
 Roman Empire in the west in 476, and fixes its termination at the fall of 
 the same in the east, in 1453,—a space of 977 years. The western 
 empire, which had commenced with Augustus, terminated about 500 
 years afterwards in Augustulus, or the little Augustus; and the eastern, 
 founded by Constantine the Great, when he removed the seat of empire 
 from Rome to Constantinople in 330, terminated 1123 years afterwards 
 in Constantine Paleologus, who might also be called with some pro¬ 
 priety Constantine the little. 
 
 That the reader may more easily follow the remarks we have to make 
 upon this subject, we will endeavor, 1st, to trace the causes which 
 brought about the decline of Literature in those ages : 2dly, to present a 
 rapid historical sketch of the literary condition at various epochs of the 
 period in question : 3dly, to point out the causes which prompted the 
 gradual rise of letters : and 4thly, to take a general survey of the sub¬ 
 ject, and to answer the question,—how much do we owe to those ages ? 
 
 I. The causes of the partial decline of letters during the period of which 
 we are speaking, must be obvious to every reader of history. Tliey are 
 almost identical with those agencies, which gradually weakened, and 
 finally overthrew the Roman empire in the west. This vast Colossus, 
 which stood with one foot upon the heart of Europe, and the other upon 
 Asia, grasping with one hand northern Africa and with the other the 
 Britains, was destined to share the fate of all earthly institutions. It 
 trembled upon its base, tottered and fell,—the victim of its own vastness, 
 and innate tendency to decay. The German and northern hordes had 
 ever been the most formidable enemies of Rome. The same spirit seems 
 to have animated the Goths and Vandals under,Alaric and Genseric, 
 Attila and Totila, as had many centuries before brought Brennus with 
 his Gauls before the walls of Rome. 
 
 While Rome continued to be the seat of empire, the efforts of the 
 Northmen through centuries proved unavailing. As often as they 
 
 1 Vergleichung Jer sitten, etc., des mittelalters mitdenen unsers Jahrhunderts. 
 
 2 AUgeineine Oe.schirhte der Cultiir und Literatur. 
 
 8 Oeschichte des srudiuui der Classisclieii Literatur 
 
 4 Since become a Catholic. 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 79 
 
 % 
 
 attempted invasion, tliey were met by the Roman legions under an 
 Adrian, a Marcus Aurelius, or a Septimius Severus, and were driven 
 back to their northern fastnesses. But no sooner had Constantine re¬ 
 moved the seat of government to Constantinople, than the western 
 branch of the empire was devoted to destruction. Franks, Goths, Van¬ 
 dals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Alans, Huns, Lombards, Danes, and Nor¬ 
 mans, successively swept like torrents over the most beautiful provinces 
 of Europe. Nothing could resist their force, or check their headlong 
 career. They carried everything before them. They conquered but to 
 destroy. They demolished almost everything ; for more than two cen¬ 
 turies they built up nothing.. 
 
 From the year 400 to the year 600, was a sad period for Europe. The 
 first conquerors did not occupy the soil which they had subdued; they 
 pushed on to new conquests, or rather to new devastations. The terri¬ 
 tory they had last left was immediately invaded by another tribe more 
 rapacious than themselves; and thus pushing each other on, as wave 
 driving wave, they covered the face of Europe with the waters of a 
 deluge of barbarism for centuries. It was only after the apparently 
 inexhaustible population of the North had been almost drained, that the 
 different tribes began to settle down permanently on the soil which they 
 had hitherto only occasionally occupied. 
 
 Italy suffered most, as she was the favorite land with the Northmen; 
 she was always aimed at because always beautiful,* as an Italian orator 
 lately said; there was scarcely a tribe, which did not trample down her 
 lovely fields and rich vineyards. During the brief space of twenty years, 
 Rome was taken by assault and pillaged five times ! Yet a late American 
 writer has well said : — 
 
 “ There was, in that period of general social dissolution one country, 
 in which the work of devastation commenced much later, and ended 
 much sooner. Italv in the middle ages was like Mt. Ararat in the 
 Deluge, — the last reached by the flood and the first left. The remains 
 of the Roman social world were either never utterly dispersed in that 
 country, or far later than any where else ; and if we are to date the close 
 of the middle ages from the extinction of feudalism, that revolution was 
 effected in Italy, no less than three centuries before the time of Charles 
 V. — the epoch assumed by Hallam, as the conclusion of his work. It 
 would then, perhaps, be expedient to refer the history of Europe in the 
 middle ages to Italy, as the history of the ancient world has always been 
 referred to Rome. The great ascendency of the papal power, and 
 the influence of Italian genius on the literature and the fine arts of all 
 countries, made Italy essentially the center of light — the sovereign of 
 thought — the Capital of Civilization ! 
 
 The justice of this tribute to Italy is confirmed by Hallam, who says : 
 
 “ It may be said with some truth, that Italy supplied the fire from 
 which other nations in this first, as afterwards in the second era of the 
 
 1 “ Sempre bersagliata. perche sempre bella.’’ 
 
 2 North Aiiiericau Keview,1840 — Art. Hallam’s Middle Ages. 
 
80 
 
 LLTERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 revival of letters, lighted their own torches. Lanfranc, Anselm, Peter 
 Lombard, the founder of systematic theology in the twelfth century, 
 Irnerius, the restorer of jurisprudence, Gratian, the author of the first 
 compilation of canon law, the school of Salerno, that guided medical art 
 in all countries, the first dictionaries of the Latin tongue, the first treatise 
 of Algebra, the first great work that makes an epoch in Anatomy, are as 
 truly and exclusively the boast of Italy, as the restoration of Greek 
 literature and of classical taste in the fifteenth century. 
 
 The Northmen not only arrested agriculture and pillaged cities, but 
 they often destroyed libraries, and tore or defaced the finest monuments 
 of Literature and the Arts. They spared nothing in their ruthless career 
 of destruction. Occasionally, indeed, an Attila, calling himself 
 Scourge of Godf would pause with awe before a Leo the Great pleading 
 with a divine energy, that his flock might be spared by the wolf; and 
 even a Totila, the last ravager of Rome, (A. D. 554) would quail before 
 the humble sanctity of a Benedict; but these are only exceptions to a 
 general rule. Even the monasteries, those sanctuaries of learning, though 
 often spared, were sometimes pillaged and destroyed. The famous 
 monastery of Mt. Cassino, in Italy, to which even Totila had made a 
 pilgrimage of reverence, was afterwards plundered by the Lombards, (A. 
 D. 580). 
 
 The confusion of society, — the perpetual tumults which distracted 
 Europe, the destruction of agriculture and manufactures, and the misery 
 and wretchedness thereby induced, —the tears and cries of the widow 
 and orphan, — and the other evils of that period, are feelingly deplored 
 by cotemporaneous writers. So great was the distress in Europe, that 
 about the beginning of the tenth century, many believed the end of the 
 world was at hand. 
 
 These causes seemed to act with but little intermission, until towards 
 the end of the tenth century, or during a period of nearly 500 years. It 
 required this long period to enable Europe to settle down, and to become 
 adapted to the new order of things, brought about by a series of revolu¬ 
 tions till then unparalleled in history. 
 
 In the midst of continual agitation and revolution, men could not find 
 time to apply to the cultivation of letters. From necessity, their hands 
 were better trained to the use of the sword than to that of the pen. From 
 the continual devastation of wars, books, which could then be multiplied 
 only by the copyist, became exceedingly scarce. The venerable Alex¬ 
 andrian library was destroyed by the Saracens in 641, and its fate was 
 unhappily shared by many other valuable libraries in Europe. Books 
 were so dear that they could be procured only by the wealthy, precisely 
 because they had become so scarce. A memorable instance of this occurs 
 in the case of the Dutchess of Anjou, who for one copy of a book of 
 Homilies, gave one hundred sheep and eighty bushels of wheat. The 
 
 1 Introduction to the Literature of Kurope in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seTenteenth centuries; 
 2 Tols. 8vo; — Harper’s Edition, vol. 1. p. 53. 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 81 
 
 loan of books itself, became sometimes a matter of diplomatic nego¬ 
 tiation. 
 
 Another fact must be kept in view. Not only did new dynasties arise 
 on the ruins of previous institutions, but a new race peopled Europe, with 
 new manners, customs, laws, and religion ; whilst the miserable remnant 
 of the original population was reduced to a degrading vassalage. Who 
 can wonder, if under these circumstances, literature declined ? The 
 great marvel is, that it was not entirely and forever prostrated. And but 
 for the finger* of God, acting through the divinely reactive energies of 
 Catholic Christianity, we sincerely believe that this would have been the 
 case. 
 
 Christianity was trampled in the dust by the armies of the infidel or 
 semi-infideP Northmen, but her divine spirit was not subdued. She con¬ 
 quered like her Founder, by being seemingly conquered for a time, by 
 death ! She bent her heavenly form to the tempest, but did not quail 
 under its violence; and when its utmost fury had been spent, she raised 
 her head, and exhibited her divine countenance and heavenly features to 
 the barbarians who held her captive ; — they paused, and, — 
 
 ** God! how they admired her heavenly hue.’ 2 
 
 They were stricken with awe, they reverently took off her chains, fell 
 down before her, worshiped at her shrine, and swore eternal fidelity to 
 her cause ! Their enthusiasm was turned into another and better chan¬ 
 nel; and the subsequent history of Chivalry and the Crusades contains 
 the record of its mighty results. 
 
 After having subdued her conquerors by converting them, Christianity 
 had to tame their ferocity, and gradually to civilize and enlighten them. 
 And nobly did she accomplish these results. But she determined wisely 
 to proceed gradually and slowly in the great work. She knew that all 
 great beneficial changes, which are intended to affect whole masses, are 
 slow and gradual in their operation, and that nothing which is violent is 
 permanent. The sturdy oak, which has vanquished a thousand storms, 
 has been for centuries acquiring its present firmness and solidity ; while 
 the earthquake and the tornado are the work of a moment. 
 
 A striking confirmation of this principle is exhibited in the literary 
 histovy of the Middle Ages. Letters continued to decline for nearly five 
 hundred years, until they reached their lowest stage in the tenth century; 
 and then they gradually improved for about the same period, until they 
 arrived at their highest point, or zenith, in the golden age of Leo X., 
 about the beginning of the sixteenth century.^ And this naturally leads 
 us to the second point of our division, in which we will endeavor to 
 give a rapid historical sketch of the various epochs of literature during 
 the period in question. 
 
 1 Some of the Northmen liad been partially imbued with the Arian heresy. 
 
 2 Dryden’s Hind and Canther. 
 
 3 Ilallam thinks that “the seventh century is the nadir of the human mind in Europe,’’ tliough 
 he admits that in England the darkness was greatest in the tenth. —Introduction, &:c., sup cit. I, Ztt. 
 
 9 
 
82 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 II. In the fall of Rome, and the establishment of the Gothic kingdom 
 in Italy under Odoacer, in 476, Literature received a heavy blow. Yet 
 amidst the turmoil of war, and tlie storm of revolution, many were 
 found in difierent parts of the fallen empire who devoted their time to 
 letters. 
 
 In the sixth century, Vigilius Tapsensis wrote and published in Afiica 
 many works of considerable merit. Dionysius Exiguus, or the Little, 
 became famous by inventing the Pashal Cycle, and settling the Cliristiar 
 era, about the year 516; and though his chronology has been thought 
 to be slightly erroneous, yet it has been followed by all Christendom 
 ever since his time. He was alike distinguished as an astronomer, his¬ 
 torian, and theologian, and he would have reflected honor on any age. 
 In the same century, Gregory of Tours wrote his History of the Franks, 
 which is the foundation of all early French history. Italy was rendered 
 conspicuous in the same age by two names, illustrious in philosopliy and 
 polite learning : Cassiodorus and Boethius, both of noble family and 
 senatorial rank, but more illustrious far by their piety and devotion to 
 letters. The former writing to the latter, praises him for having re¬ 
 established Greek learning in Italy, and for having translated, for the 
 benefit of his countrymen, the works of Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Euclid, 
 Plato, Aristotle, and Archimedes. 
 
 About the middle of the seventh century (A. D. 669), Greek litera¬ 
 ture was introduced into England by Theodorus, the seventh archbishop 
 of Canterbury, himself a Greek. St. Gregory the Great, by his virtues, 
 enlightened mind, and patronage of learning, shone like a bright luminary 
 in the center of Italy about the beginning of this century ; while St. 
 Isidore of Seville, by valuable works on almost every subject, laid open 
 the treasures of learning to his countrymen in Spain. The compendious 
 and encyclopedical character of his writings, was well adapted to an 
 .age, in which books were scarce, and could not be obtained without 
 great difficulty. Towards the close of this century flourished the 
 venerable Bede, the father of English history, whose name is in itself a 
 •sufficient eulogy. Beside his famous history, he wrote several works on 
 'Grammar, Music, Arithmetic, and other branches. The monastery of 
 Lindisfarne became, under him, a radiating point of literature to all 
 Europe. 
 
 St. John of Damascus, who is considered by some as the reviver of 
 the dialectic or Aristotelian method of reasonintr, flourished in the eiofhth 
 century. In the same age Paul, the Deacon, wrote his valuable history 
 of the Lombards, and Paulinus of Aquileia published several Latin 
 poems of respectable merit. The close of this century is famed for a 
 praiseworthy effort made by the emperor Charlemagne to stay the 
 downward tendency of letters, and to infuse a new literary energy into 
 Europe. Who has not heard of Alcuin, the learned English monk, 
 employed by that great prince to carry into effect his intentions; of 
 Peter the Deacon, of Pisa, his preceptor ; of Eginhard, his secretary 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 88 
 
 
 and historian; and of many others whom this munificent patron of let¬ 
 ters attracted to his court ? He established in his palace regular confer¬ 
 ences on literary subjects among the literati whom he gathered around 
 him, and thereby laid the foundation of those academies and literary 
 associations, which have subsequently done so much for the advance¬ 
 ment of learning. Before the reign of Charlemagne, schools had been 
 established in many of the monasteries and parislies in Italy, France, 
 England, Ireland, Spain, and Germany; and he ordered by a public law, 
 that seminaries of learning should be opened at every cathedral church 
 throughout his vast empire. 
 
 Towards the close of the following century, a similar effort was made 
 by Alfred the Great, of England, to re-establish learning in his kingdom. 
 He was one of the most extraordinary men that ever lived. He fought 
 fifty-four pitched battles with various vicissitudes of fortune, and yet, 
 whether in the camp or in his palace, he invariably devoted one-third 
 of his time to prayer and study. He made a law, that every man who 
 owned two hides of land should send his children to school until they 
 were sixteen years of age, and that his sheriffs and officers should apply 
 to letters, or quit their offices. He ti^nslated many works into his 
 vernacular language, and wrote several poems.' 
 
 It was the fate of the great men just named, to have their benevolent 
 intentions in a great measure frustrated, by the imbecility and domestic 
 feuds of their children and successors, and by the rude and evil nature 
 of the times. 
 
 The tenth century is generally reputed the darkest of all the Middle 
 Ages. It was natural that it should be so. The causes which brought 
 about the decline of letters had been steadily operating for nearly live 
 hundred years; and during this century unhappy Europe, already 
 scourged for long ages, and bleeding at every pore, was invaded in the 
 north by the Danes, in the center by the Normans, and in the south by 
 the Saracens. Yet even in this iron age there were many illustrious 
 men : Otho the Great, of Germany, whose praises were celebrated in a 
 Latin epic poem of some merit, still extant, by Roswida, a cotemporary 
 Saxon poetess ; Ratherius and Luitprand of Italy, the latter of whom 
 was a wi-iter of considerable spirit and much wit, though his style is 
 infected with much of the grossness of the age. Even during this 
 century, the monks kept up their constant occupation of copying books; 
 as is proved by the fact, that when the Sarac^ens took and pillaged a 
 monastery, near Novara in the north of Italy, they found, among the 
 works in its library, copies of Virgil, Horace, and Cicero. The Poles, 
 Hungarians, and a portion of the Russians, were also- converted to 
 Christianity during this century. 
 
 Hallam does not subscribe to the more generally received opinion, 
 that the tenth was the least enlightened of the Middle Ages, at least so 
 far as France and Germany are concerned. He says : 
 
 1 See Burke's Works, vol. ii. Abridgment of Eugliah History. 
 
8-1 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 “But, compared with the seventh and eiglith century, tlie tenth was 
 an age of illumination in France. And Meiners, wlio judged the 
 Middle Ages somewhat perhaps too severely, but witli a penetrating and 
 comprehensive observation, of which there liad been few instances, liad 
 gone so far as to say, that ‘ in no age, perhaps, did Germany possess 
 more learned and virtuous Churchmen of the episcopal order, than in 
 the latter half of the tenth and ben'inniniif of the eleventh century.’ 
 Eichorn points out indications of a more extensive acquaintance witli 
 ancient writers in several French and German ecclesiastics of this 
 period.” ’ 
 
 III. From the beginning of the eleventh century, the prospects of 
 Literature beuan to brighten. That and the followino- centuries could 
 boast the names of Gerbert, Anselm, Lanfranc, St. Bernard, Alexander 
 of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Scotus, and St. Thomas 
 Aquinas. The last name alone would immortalize any age or country. 
 How subtle and well balanced the mind, how deep the research, how 
 accurate the reasoning of Aquinas ! In strength, depth, grasp, and 
 clearness of mind, he was the equal, in many other respects he was the 
 superior, of Lord Bacon and Sir Isaac Newton, the much vaunted giants 
 of Eno-lish scientific literature. . 
 
 O 
 
 The causes which brought about this favorable chantje in the literary 
 
 O O if 
 
 condition of Europe are obvious. When, as above stated, she had been 
 reduced to the lowest point of misery, a reaction was naturally expected. 
 A practice, which obtained very extensively during that period, 
 contributed much to brinof about this reaction. Christians were in the 
 habit of making pii grimages to Rome and Jerusalem, to renew on the 
 spots were they occurred a remembrance of the sufferings and triumphs 
 of the apostles, martyrs, and of the Great King of Martyrs. This 
 custom afforded the double advantage of causing men to visit or pass 
 through places where literature was still cultivated, and of bringing 
 them into more frequent contact with each other.^ Whatever brings 
 the masses of mankind into continual intercourse, tends to elicit talent, 
 to stimulate inquiry, and to promote learning. The law of physical 
 nature,— that inactivity produces disease, stagnation, or death, and that 
 motion promotes health, vigor, and life,— is true also of the moral and 
 literary condition of mankind. 
 
 The pilgrimages paved the way for a series of great and mighty 
 events, which aroused Europe from her lethargy, united all her jarring 
 elements, and concentrated her energies on one great object. The 
 Crusades did more than this. They broke down the feudal system, 
 enlarged the boundaries of dynasties, and drained Europe of most of 
 those tiery spirits, who were conspicuous for nothing but stirring up 
 civil feuds, or causing open wars. They originated a spirit of enterprise, 
 stimulated commerce, threw ’men on their own resources, and tauirht them 
 how to make those resources available. The old adage that “necessity 
 
 1 Introduction to Literature, etc., i, 2S. 
 
 2 See Hurke’s works, ibid, ch. 2, v. 2. p. 514. et seq 
 
 / 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 85 
 
 is tlie mother of invention,”—was never more fully verified, as we shall 
 see in a subsequent part of this Lecture. In a political point of view, the 
 Crusades were equally advantageous. They were a decisive blow in the 
 great struggle which continued for centuries, between barbarism and 
 civilization, between Asia and Europe, between the Crescent and the 
 Cross! When the heroes who fought under Godfrey de Bouillon 
 planted their glorious banner on the battlements of Jerusalem, in 1099, 
 and made it float there triumphantly for nearly one hundred years, they 
 planted a thorn in the side of Islamism, that did more perhaps than any 
 thing else, to cripple that warlike monster, which was marching with 
 giant strides, cimetar in hand, over the world, blighting and destroying 
 every thing in its course. The fall of Constantinople was thus retarded 
 perhaps for centuries, and while the Mussulmans were engaged at home 
 with the invaders of their own territory, the Christians of Europe had 
 time to repose, and to prepare for the still coming struggle. 
 
 That master stroke of policy,— that “carrying of the war into Afri¬ 
 ca,”— will reflect immortal honor on the political wisdom and searching 
 forecast of Gregory VII. and Urban II., who planned and carried into 
 execution those expeditions.* 
 
 The invention of the art of printing, by Guttenberg and Faust, in 
 1436;—the munificent patronage of letters by the houses of Medici, of 
 Este, and of Gonzaga, and by the Popes in Italy;—the vast number of 
 learned Greeks who fled to Europe on the taking of Constantinople by 
 Mohammed II. in 1463, and the welcome which these men received, 
 * especially in Italy,—completed what the Crusades had begun. Litera¬ 
 ture progressed with giant strides in Italy, which had shone as a beacon 
 light to the rest of Europe throughout the long period of the Middle 
 Ages, and towards its close blazed up so brilliantly, as to excite the 
 surprise, and to dazzle the eyes of mankind. There was a galaxy of 
 genius in the golden age of Leo X., in the beginning of the sixteenth 
 century,—very properly styled the second Augustan Age of Roman 
 literature. 
 
 But see each Muse in Leo’s golden days 
 
 Starts from her trance, and trims her withered bays; 
 
 Rome’s ancient genius o’er its ruins spread, 
 
 Shakes off the dust, and,rears his rev’rend head. 
 
 Then sculpture and her sister arts revive. 
 
 Stones leaped to form, and rocks began to live. 
 
 With sweeter notes each rising temple rung; 
 
 A Raphael painted, and a Vida sung. 
 
 Immortal Vida! on thy honored brow. 
 
 The poet’s bays and critic’s ivy grow; 
 
 Cremona now shall ever boast thy name. 
 
 As next in place to Mantua, next in fame! 
 
 1 That this motive was combined with the enthusiastic desire to recover tiio holy lan<l. desecrated 
 by file Mussulmans, is manifest from tlie Acts of the Council <f Clermont in 1095. and from the 
 *peeoli of Urban II., in this council, which is a master piece of eloquence and political wisdom. 
 
 M 
 
86 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 IV. Were the middle ages as darlc as they are usually represented by 
 Protestant historians ? How much do we owe to that period ? I might 
 rather ask, what is there in Literature and the Arts that we do not owe 
 to those ages ? We owe to them the ancient Grecian and Roman 
 Literature, which but for the care and indefatigable industry of men who 
 deserve every praise, and who receive nought but sneers, would have 
 been utterly and irretrievably lost, amidst the storms and revolutions 
 which swept over Europe during the greater part of that period. 
 
 Two institutions of the Catholic religion greatly contributed to this 
 happy result: the preservation of the Latin language in the public 
 service, and the monastic orders. The former imposed upon all 
 candidates for orders the obligation of learning the Latin language and 
 of studying the ancient Roman literature, and thereby afforded them a 
 powerful inducement to preserve the master-pieces of Roman composi¬ 
 tion ;* while the latter opened sacred retreats and holy sanctuaries for 
 learning, while the rude storm of war was sweeping over the world, 
 destroying in mankind all relish for letters, and desolating the proudest 
 monuments of Literature and the Arts.'-^ The monasteries were uene- 
 rally situated in remote solitudes, or amidst mountain rocks and torrents ; 
 they offered little inducement to the plunderer, besides being almost 
 inaccessible to his clans. It was one of the stated rules of the monks 
 of St. Benedict, to devote a portion of their time to study aiid to copying 
 books, and in the quietness of their cells, by their untiring industry, 
 they preserved and transmitted to us the precious treasures of ancient 
 classic Literature. Enlio'htened men of every relio-ious creed have done 
 
 O v O 
 
 justice to the monks. And yet it is the fashion at the present day to 
 sneer at these deservino- men, in season and out of season; and every 
 valiant knight, who, booted and spurred, mounts his fiery Rosinante ; and 
 dashes in amono* the hooded monks of the dark ao-es, scattering them 
 hither and yon, as he of La Mancha did the flock of sheep, thinks that 
 he has achieved a brilliant exploit! 
 
 We have now before us a list of twenty-five great improvements and 
 inventions, which we owe to those much abused ages, many of them of 
 vast and paramount importance to society. 
 
 1st. At the head of the list deserves to be placed, on account of its 
 great influence on modern refinement, the elevation of female character, 
 for which we are mainly indebted to the chivalry of the Middle Ao-es. 
 When the Northmen were converted to the Catholic faith in tlie fifth 
 and the following centuries, they learned, along with other teachino-s of 
 Christianity, that the Saviour God whom they adored vouchsafed to be 
 born of a woman, to call her Mother, and to be subject to Her. The 
 high honor thus divinely conferred upon Mary, was reflected from her 
 upon her whole sex ; just as the disobedience and consequent dishonor 
 of Eve had bowed down woman to the dust, marked by the serpent’s 
 
 1 See Burke’s works, vol. 2, Abridgment of Eug. History, c. 2, p. 514 et seq. 
 
 2 Burke, ibid. 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 87 
 
 trail. The generous Northmen caught up at once this idea, so just and 
 60 beautiful, and their enthusiasm in honor of the sex was aroused. The 
 principles of medieval chivalry were developed ; but the feeling out¬ 
 stripped the principle, and woman suddenly found herself raised as mucli 
 above lier true level in society, as she had hitherto been degraded below 
 it. The humble daughter of Mary was thus far exalted above the proud 
 daughter of Eve. But the extravagant excesses of chivalrous devotion 
 to the sex were curbed by the holy principles of religion ; and the result 
 of these elements and causes, is the station which woman now occupies 
 in society. Under Paganism she was the slave or toy of man ; the 
 creature of his caprice, or the victim of his tyranny. Even the more 
 polished society of ancient Greece and Rome afforded but very imperfect 
 exceptions to this remark. Thanks to Christianity and lo the Middle 
 Ages, she has ceased to be the slave, and has been made the companion 
 of man : from being the drudge of society, she has become its ornament 
 and refiner. 
 
 The restoration of woman to her proper station in society had a power¬ 
 ful influence on civilization and Literature. Even the extravao-ancies 
 
 O 
 
 of chivalry had their beneficial results. Female influence not only 
 prompted to deeds of valor, but also stimulated men to triumphs in poetry 
 and Literature ; the delicate hands of woman wove not only the chaplet 
 which decorated* the vvarrior’s brow, but also the laurel and the ivy 
 wreath, which adorned the brow of genius. 
 
 Women did more at that period than exert a mere influence ; they 
 acted their own parts. Who has not heard of the famous Joan of Arc, 
 the maid of Orleans, who at the tender age of seventeen, led the dis¬ 
 heartened troops of France to deeds of heroic valor, retrieving the for¬ 
 tunes of her country conquered by a foreign foe ; driving the English 
 from more than half of France, and finishing her mission by crowning 
 Charles VII. King of France, at Rheirns, which but a few months pre¬ 
 viously was in the very heart of the territory conquered by the enemy? 
 Nor are her laurels stained by the fact, that when taken by her enemies, 
 she was, at the instigation of the Duke of Bedford, condemned and in¬ 
 humanly burned as a sorceress and witch !‘ Who has not heard of 
 Queen Margaret of Sweden, the Semiramis of the north, who in the 
 thirteenth century, by her political prowess, united all the jarring ele¬ 
 ments of northern Scandinavia into one vast kingdom? Or of Anna 
 Comnena, the authoress of the famous Alexiad, in the twelfth century ? 
 Or of more than one lady who during that period taught philosophy and 
 belles lettres in the University at Bologna^—not to mention Heloise, 
 skilled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew learning, upon whose story many 
 moderns have raised so man extravan’ant and ridiculous fictions ? 
 
 1 Twenty years afterwards, in 1451, Pope Calixtus HI, had her sentence revoked, and pronounced 
 her a patiiot and martyr. 
 
 2 The most famou.■^ of tliese femmes savtaute.*!, were Modesta di Pozzo, Cassandra Fidele, Isabella 
 di Cordov.i, Isabella de lloseres, Catharine Ribera, and Aloysia Sijiea.—[See Robel''*, Influence da 
 la Reformat, p. 839.] 
 
88 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 2 . We owe all our Modern Languages to the Middle Ages: the 
 Italian, with its sweetness ; the French, with all its grace and delicacy; 
 the Spanish, with its stern dignity ; the German and English with all 
 their force and richness. The Italian may be considered as the first 
 daughter of the Latin, the most soft and comely ; the French as the 
 second daughter, less fair than her elder sister, but possessed of more 
 tact and more varied graces; and the Spanish, not as the daughter, but 
 as the of the Latin, with the stern features 'and manly voice of the 
 parent. It is a matter of surprise, how languages so beautiful and per¬ 
 fect could have sprung from amidst the constant turmoil and confusion 
 of those ages ; and especially, how the Italian, so sweet and musical, 
 could have resulted from the union of the Latin, itself not remarkable for 
 sweetness, with the harsher sounds of the North. We are foiadbly 
 reminded of a fable in heathen mythology : — as the Cytherean Venus, 
 the heau ideal of ancient perfection in beauty, was fabled to have sprung 
 from the froth of the sea; so the Italian, the softest and most beautiful 
 of modern languages, may be said to have sprung, in all its symmetry 
 and beauty of form, from the froth of a sea agitated by continued storms 
 and revolutions. 
 
 Whatever theory we may adopt on the question, whether language be 
 A divine gift, or merely a human invention, or a result of both agencies 
 combined, there can be no doubt as to the merit wlntdi attaches to its full 
 development and cultivation. A rich,strong, precise,or melodious lan¬ 
 guage indicates corresponding qualiiiesin the people who employ it as 
 a medium of thought; and we know of no instance in which a fully 
 developed and highly cultivated langu.age does not betoken a refined 
 literary taste. 
 
 3. We owe all our Modern Poetry, and also the introduction of rythm 
 into poetry, to those ages. Italy, as usual, l(^d the way. The rude laws 
 of the Troubadours, in the twelfth, prepared the world for the Divinot 
 Commedia of Dante, in the thirteenth century. His effusions were fol¬ 
 lowed by the noble strains of Petrarch, who was crowned with lauiel 
 at Rome in the fourteenth century. The English poet Chaucer was the 
 friend, but by no means the equal of Petrarch ; his taste was often 
 vitiated by too great attachment to the rhymes of the Troubadours, and 
 he imitated too servilely his great Italian cotemporary. 
 
 4. The Paper upon which we write was invented in the Middle Ages. 
 From ancient MSS. it appears that cotton paper was used in Italy as early 
 as the tenth century, while linen paper seems to have been introduced in 
 the fourteenth.* We now reap the fruits of an invention, which has 
 made the material upon which we write and print so cheap, as to be 
 accessible to all. Before the invention of paper, parchment, and papyrus, 
 the latter an article manufactured from a plant in Egypt, were chiefly 
 used ; but they were both rare and expensive. When the Saracens over- 
 
 1 This date for the invention of linen paper is assigned by Tiraboschi. Ilallana fixes it earlier. — 
 In 1100. — Introduoiion, &c , 1. GO, supra cif. 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 89 
 
 rail Egypt, in 641, the importation of papyrus into Europe seems to have 
 ceased ; and, to the inventive genius of tlie Italians, thus thrown on their 
 own resources, we owe the present material, superior to it in every respect. 
 
 5. The glory of having invented the Art of Printing, also belongs lo the 
 period of which we are speaking. I allude not only to the Artas invented 
 by Guttenberg or Faust, in 1436, at Strasburg and Mentz, but also to an 
 invention of a much earlier date, which was only extended and improved 
 by the persons above named. I mean the invention of Chirotypography, 
 or printing by hand, of which undoubted traces are found in many ancient 
 diplomas, as old as the tenth century, and in some illuminated works of 
 equal antiquity, hitherto viewed as manuscripts. A learned Italian, the 
 Abbate Requeno, in a work published a few years since at Rome, has 
 amply established this fact; of which, however, I have been unable to 
 find mention in any work of standard English literature : —and yet it 
 is fashionable for our standard writers to sneer at the ionorance of the 
 
 O 
 
 Italians, though to them Literature certainly owes more than to any other 
 nation. Requeno proves that two kinds of hand printing were in use, — 
 the impression was sometimes taken by plates with letters carved on them, 
 sometimes by moveable types of wood, or ivory, or metal. Only one step 
 was wanting to render this invention valuable, and to multiply copies, — 
 the Press; and Guttenberg made this step. It should be recollected, how¬ 
 ever, that it is easy to add to inventions already made : facile est inventis 
 addere. It is a remarkable fact, in both stages of the history of this 
 invention, that the first mode adopted was that which afterwards consti¬ 
 tuted the highest perfection in the art: viz., the use of stereotype plates, 
 which Guttenberg abandoned in favor of moveable types, because he 
 knew of no way of casting the former, to render them available. 
 
 6 . The Illuminated Manuscripts of Che Middle Ages show that the art 
 of penmanship was then carried to a degree of perfection, which it 
 has never since attained. Who that has seen those manuscripts, has not 
 admired their splendid pictorial illustrations, their taste and exquisite 
 beauty ! The use of gold and silver ink, seems also to have been com¬ 
 mon at that period; and in the Vatican library, at Rome, there is preserved 
 a splendid illuminated manuscript copy of the New Testament in Greek, 
 as old as the eleventh century, and written entirely in letters of gold ! 
 I doubt whether our modern artists could produce any thing equal, or 
 even similar to this splendid specimen of art. 
 
 7. Universities were first founded in those ages. To them we owe the 
 two great English Universities ; Oxford, founded in 886 by Alfred the 
 Great, and Cambridge in 915 the famous University of Paris, said to 
 have been first established by Charlemagne, about the year 800 —and 
 
 1 Some writers believe that the schools founded by Alfred did not become universities until some 
 time in the twelfth century. See Ilallaui — Introduction to the Literature of Europe, &c., vol. 1, 
 p ZL 
 
 2 The same remark may be made in regard to this famous school, which, though claimed to have 
 l>een fouiideil by Charlemagne, did n<>t probably acquire a charter of rights as a university, until 
 about two centuries later. See Uallam. ibid. p. 80. 
 
 xM 2 
 
90 
 
 I 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 the perfect galaxy of Italian Universities, at Rome, Bologna, Padua, 
 Pavia, and Pisa, which became famous in the twelfth and following 
 centuries, and which counted their students not by hundreds, but by 
 thousands. The University of Padua, the alma mater of Chilstopher 
 Columbus and Americus Vespuccius, is said to have contained, at one 
 time no less than 18,000 students. The University of Oxford contained, 
 in the thirteenth century, according to the testimony of its historian 
 Anthony Wood, a Protestant, no less than 30,000 students.* 
 
 The Pandects of Justinian were discovered in the eleventh century : 
 and the study of the civil and canon law was shortly after revived by 
 the famous Irnerius or Werner, in the University of Bologna. Youths from 
 all parts of Europe frequented this and the other Italian Universities, 
 and returned to their native countries, to diffuse among their countrymen 
 the stores of knowledge they had thus accumulated. Italy thus became tlie 
 radiating point of Literature to all Europe, and her Universities contrib¬ 
 uted, perhaps as much as any other cause, to the revival of'learning and 
 to the march of civilization. The University of Paris deserves great 
 praise for having contributed its full portion to the good work. Medical 
 schools were also established at Salerno, in the south of Italy, in the 
 eleventh century, (some say the seventh), and at Montpelier and Paris, 
 in the twelfth; and thus the science of medicine was revived. In all 
 these improvements, the monks acted a very conspicuous part. 
 
 In concluding this subject, I will remark, that of the two English 
 Universities, Oxford has five halls and twenty colleges, aud that all her 
 halls, and twelve of her Colleges, were founded and endowed before 
 the year 1516 ! Cambridge has seventeen colleges, of which twelve were 
 founded before 1511 ; — from which fact it would appear that, notwith¬ 
 standing all our boasting, the daiic ages have done more for Literature 
 than a more enlightened period ! 
 
 8 . Who is so dull of ear, as not to be delighted with the harmony 
 of musical sound ? We owe to the dark ao-es, an invention unknown to 
 the ancients, by which Music has become a science, taught upon regular 
 principles. Guido of Arezzo, an Italian monk, by inventing the notes 
 of the gamut, in 1124, did for Music, what the inventor of alphabets did 
 for language,— reduced sounds to simple and systematic rules. He 
 also invented many musical instruments, such as the cymbal and hepta¬ 
 chord. While on this subject, we may remark, that Organs were either 
 invented in Italy, or at least introduced into Europe by the Italians, in 
 the eighth century; and that the use of Bells in churches may be dated 
 back to the year 605 of the Christian era. 
 
 9. But we are indebted to tlioso abused ages, for another invention, 
 which has perhaps had as great an influence as any other in advancing 
 the cause of civilization, and extending the boundaries of human know¬ 
 ledge. And it is in consequence of this invention that we tread the soil 
 of this vast continent, which but for it, would never probably have been 
 
 1 Athenop.Oxonienses, 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 91 
 
 discovered by the civilized world. We mean the Mariner’s Compass. 
 The precise date of this invention is not known ; but it is spoken of by 
 French and Italian writers in the twelfth century. The Amaltites, 
 enterprising mariners in the south of Italy, seem to have been the first 
 to apply it to navigation. 
 
 The invention at its first stage was rude and simple enough. The 
 magnetized needle was placed in a vessel of water, upon pieces of straw 
 or two split sticks; and it was evidently of little use when a vessel was 
 agitated by a rough sea. About the close of (he thirteenth century, Flavio 
 di Gioja^ an Italian of Pasitano, a village near Amalfi, devised a method 
 by which this inconvenience was obviated : he suspended the needle 
 on a pivot placed at its center, and it thus became available under all 
 circumstances. The box, with the points of the Compass marked on its 
 rim, was added, and thus the invention was completed, though it was 
 subsequently much improved. The Jleur de lis is said to have been 
 placed at the North Pole, in honor of the royal house of France, which 
 then controlled the government of Naples, whose subject di Gioja was. 
 
 The ancients knew somethin^: of the loadstone, but never thouijfht of 
 applying it to navigation. Some writers, whose spirit leads them to 
 detract as much as possible from Christian nations, and to give the merit 
 of every thing to Pagans, have contended that the Chinese invented the 
 Mariner’s Compass. It is, however, certain, from the letters of the 
 earliest missionaries to China, that the species of compass formerly used 
 by the Chinese was entirely different from our magnetic needle. And 
 if we consider the truly wonderful progress which this very enlightened 
 people have since made in navigation, with their beautiful junks, as 
 broad as they are long, plowing the deep, we will certainly feel dis¬ 
 posed to award them every honor find glory; especially as they make 
 themselves some thousands of years older than the world ! 
 
 10 . The invention just mentioned led to other great improvements. 
 The frequent and extensive voyages undertaken by Italian navigators, 
 greatly increased the amount of geographical knowledge. Tlie travels 
 of Rubruquis, and Marco Polo, the famous Venetian navigator, as well 
 as tlie written account of the Catholic missionaries, who, in th.e thir¬ 
 teenth and fourteenth centuries*, penetrated into the very heart of Asia, 
 threw additional light upon the history, manners and customs, and 
 geography of those distant nations. From the ancient map made by- 
 Marco Polo, and recently published, with learned essays, by the late 
 Cardinal Zurla, it appears manifest that Polo doubled the Cape of Good 
 Hope, and visited Madagascar. The Canary Islands were also discov¬ 
 ered by the Portuguese, in the thirteenth century. Tlius was the way 
 prepared for the discovery of America by Columbus, in 1492. 
 
 11 . Commerce was also carried on with spirit and vigor from about 
 the same time, and the products of the whole world flowed into Europe. 
 Italy here also led the way. The Venetian, Genoese, and Pisan repub¬ 
 lics, carried on an extensive trade with Asia and Egypt. The Venetians, 
 
92 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 from tlie year 1090, tlie era of tlie first crusade, became tlie carriers of 
 Europe. Another powerful commercial league sprang up in the thir- 
 teenth century, in the north-western part of Europe. The Hanseatic 
 leau’ue, which beuan in 1241, with the two cities of Hamburg- and 
 Lubeck, comprised in 1370 no less than sixty-four cities and forty-four 
 allies. 
 
 12 . The first Bank was founded at Venice in the year 1157. To 
 facilitate commercial intercourse, bills of exchange (letlere di cambio) 
 were also introduced into Italy about the same time. 
 
 13. The increased intercourse among mankind for commercial pur¬ 
 poses, and the necessity of carrying on regular correspondence with 
 distant persons, suggested the idea of a Post-Office. We read that the 
 University of Paris, and the Italian Universities, as early as the twelfth 
 century, established regular courierc through all parts of Europe, for the 
 purpose of enabling the students to correspond with their parents, and 
 to collect money to pay their expenses. Such was the humble com¬ 
 mencement of an institution, which has since been so far extended and 
 perfected, as to ramify throughout the whole world, and to furnisli a 
 regular medium of intercourse for the most distant nations. We may 
 here remark, en passant^ that the first Newspapers were published in 
 Venice, in 1562. 
 
 14. We also owe to the period of which we are speaking, an invention 
 which enables old persons to read, and prevents those who are afflicted 
 with shortsightedness from falling into many disasters, which would 
 otherwise beset this afflicted class of human beings. Spectacles for the 
 old and shortsighted were first constructed by Salvino, a monk of Pisa, 
 in Italy, in 1285. Some writers award the merit of this invention to 
 the famous English monk, Roger Bacon. It is, however, probable, that 
 he never constructed spectacles; though in his Opus Mojus he certainly 
 explains the principle upon which they should be made. He also 
 unfolds the principle of the telescope, microscope, and magic lantern; and 
 he speaks of a certain inextinguishable fire, which is generally under¬ 
 stood to mean phosphorus. In the same work he speaks of a certain 
 composition of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal, which would imitate the 
 sound and brilliancy of thunder and lightning, and one square inch of 
 which ignited would destroy a whole army or city. Hence some have 
 considered him the inventor of 
 
 15. Gunpowder, of which he certainly had a clear idea. It is 
 however probable that his knowledge was confined to theory and a few 
 experiments.‘ Schwartz, a monk of Cologne, seems to have been the 
 first who manufactured gunpowder, about the year 1320. Cannons 
 were used in the battles of Crecy and Poictiers, towards the close of the 
 fourteenth century. If the Chinese historians deserve any credit, the 
 celestial empire had the merit of inventing gunpowder, long before this 
 world was made ! As early as the year 688, a composition, called the 
 
 1 lie died in 1292. 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 93 
 
 Greek fire, was employed by the orientals, especially in sea f.glits : but 
 all agree that it was not owr gunpowder. A work is still preserved in the 
 University of Oxford, England, written in the ninth centuiy by one 
 Gracchus, who describes a compound nearly resembling that of which 
 we are treating. 
 
 No invention has perhaps exerted a more powerful, and I believe a more 
 beneficial influence on the destinies of the world, than that of this 
 terrific agent. It has entirely changed the aspect of war. It has 
 affected fortification, ship building, and has wholly changed military 
 tactics. Besides its beneficial influence on internal improvements, it 
 has, strange to say, softened and mitigated the horrors of war, and 
 greatly diminished the number of those who fall in battle. Armies 
 formerly engaged in mortal combat face to face, and fought for whole 
 days, often returning to the combat, nor was victory obtained until one 
 or the other army was nearly annihilated ; men now fight at a distance, 
 and the contest is soon decided. Thousands fell formerly, where 
 hundreds fall now. Compare any great andent battle with any decisive 
 modern engagement, and you will be convinced of the truth of this 
 remark. Take for example two of the most decisive enii’a^ements 
 recorded in history : the battle of Waterloo, and that between Poictiers 
 and Tours in 732, when Charles Martel defeated the Saracens. In the 
 former, the total amount of killed and wounded on both sides was about 
 56,000, of whom perhaps not half were killed ; whereas in the latter the 
 Saracens alone had 100,000— some say 300,000 killed. 
 
 16. Stone Coal, which has since proved so extensively useful, in private 
 residences and in manufactories, was discovered in England in 1307. 
 
 17. The Arabian arithmetical Numbers were introduced into Europe 
 by the famous Gerbert, afterwards Pope Sylvester II., about the year 
 991. Thus the foundation of arithmetic was laid, and the science of 
 mathematics beuan from this time to be extensivelv studied. Algebraic 
 calculation was also introduced into Europe by the Italians, in 1412.' 
 
 18. Though the ancient Greeks and Romans were acquainted with 
 Glass, yet they seem never to have used it in windows. This improve¬ 
 ment in the comforts of life, was generally adopted in Europe in the 
 Middle Ages. The first mention of glass windows occurs in writers of 
 the third and fourth century. 
 
 19. A method of staining glass was generally known and employed 
 during that period, which has since been lost. Efforts were made 
 during the last century in Germany and France to revive this beautiful 
 art, but with very imperfect success. The solemn and mellow light of 
 the old Gothic churches, which tends to inspire us with pensive, yet 
 pleasing emotions, is owing to the use in them of stained glass. 
 
 1 The Arahiaiis have the credit of these inventions. They also excelled in medicine. They 
 learned much from tlie works of the ancient Greek authors, whom this active and enterprising 
 people translated This is about all that can be said in favor of the literature of the fanatical 
 followers of Mohammed, at least in its relation to the European literature of the Middle Ages. Yet 
 some authors would wish to convey the impression that what we do not owe to the Chinese, we have 
 derived from the Arabs! 
 
94 
 
 LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 
 
 20. The ch ef sufferings of Europe during the Middle Ages grew out 
 of the neglect of Agriculture. The monks applied themselves early to 
 this useful art, and taught others how to practice it. The monasteries 
 were generally situated in remote and desert places; the monks re¬ 
 claimed the soil, drained the marshes, fertilized even the rocky mountain 
 tops, and improved whole districts. They also taught the people other 
 useful arts. Thus, when the people of Sussex in England‘were perishing 
 with hunger during a famine, in 605, Bishop Wilfrid at the head of his 
 monks, plunged into the sea in presence of the assembled multitudes, 
 and thus opened to them a new source of subsistence, of which their 
 ignorance or druidical superstitions had hitherto deprived them.' 
 
 21. The monks also cultivated Botany, and studied the medical 
 qualities of plants. The clergy were in many places the only physicians. 
 It is a remarkable feature in that age, that every pursuit was referred to, 
 or connected with, religion. The names of flowers were taken from 
 some supposed aptitude to recall religious reminiscences. The passion¬ 
 flower, the marygold, and others are examples of this. How beautiful 
 and poetical the turn of thought, which suggested the idea of the Floral 
 Calendar, by which the plants, in their difierent times of flowering, 
 marked the division of time, and pointed to the holy festivals of religion ! 
 This was truly giving to the flowers a language, which spoke of God 
 and his saints — of religion — of Heaven ! 
 
 “ What a lovely thought to mark the hours, 
 
 As they floated iu light away; 
 
 By the opening and the folding flowers, 
 
 That laugh unto the summer’s day! ” 
 
 22. The Clock was invented in the Middle Ages. The invention is 
 prior to the twelfth century, though the author of it is not clearly 
 known. The phrase, “ the clock has struck,” was common in the 
 twelfth century. Some award the honor of the invention to the famous 
 Herbert, already mentioned, who certainly put up a clock for Otho the 
 Great, at Magdeburg, about the year 1000. Others ascribe it to the 
 Italian monk Pacificus, and others to the Abbott William, of Hirscliau 
 in Germany. It is probable that they all contributed their share to the 
 invention, at nearly about the same time. It is a remarkable fact in the 
 history of human knowledge, that in its progress many learned men in 
 difterent places hit simultaneously upon the same invention. Every 
 scholar has heard of the controversies between the friends of Gallileo 
 and Huygens about the application of the pendulum to clocks; between 
 Newton and Hook and the Bernouillies, about the first discoverer of the 
 laws of attraction ; and between Newton and Leibnitz about the author¬ 
 ship of the jiuxional or integral calculus. Before the invention of clocks, 
 the sun-dial, the hour-glass, and the Clepsydron, constructed on tlie 
 principle of water dripping through a small orifice,— were the only 
 instruments used for measuring time. ' 
 
 1 See Durke’s Works,Vol. II, p. 614, et seq. 
 
IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 
 95 
 
 23. In the thirteenth century, Painting was revived in Italy by Giunla 
 of Pisa, Guido of Sienna, and the great Cimabue of Florence. Thus 
 was commenced that great Italian school of painting, which afterwards 
 produced a Raphael, a Titian, a Michael Angelo, a Domenichino, a Han¬ 
 nibal Caracci, and a Leonardo da Vinci. 
 
 24. Silk was almost unknown to the ancients. Among the unpar¬ 
 donable extravagances of the Roman emperor Heliogabalus, in the third 
 century (A. D. 222), historians enumerate his having had a garment 
 entirely of silk ! The silk worm was brought from the East Indies or 
 China to Constantinople in 552, and the Italians first introduced its 
 culture into Europe in the twelfth century. Roger, king of Sicily, 
 deserves to be mentioned, as the first who called the attention of Europe 
 to this subject. The silk manufactures of Italy, France, and Flanders 
 flourished to a wonderful extent in the thirteenth and following cen¬ 
 turies, and the beautiful specimens of gold lace, and splendidly flowered 
 and variegated silks of that period, equal, if they do not surpass, anything 
 of the present enlightened days. Many of them may be seen in the old 
 cathedrals and museums of Europe. 
 
 25. Those ages had the merit of originating and carrying to the 
 greatest perfection, a new style of Architecture. Who has not admired 
 the splendid specimens of Gothic architecture still visible throughout 
 Europe ; specimens which, even in the ruins, which the fanatical vandal¬ 
 ism of the sixteenth century has left of many of them, in England, Ireland 
 and Scotland, are imposing still! How massive, and yet how light, is 
 that order of architecture. How complicated the parts, and yet how 
 simple the effect of the whole ! The massive walls and the vast pilasters, 
 as well as the pointed arch, the delicate creeper, the clustered column, 
 and the fairy tracery,—all contribute their parts to the effect. Take for 
 example, the famous cathedral of Pisa, with its leaning tower, or rather 
 the latter only. Can modern skill and architecture rear a pile like that: 
 upwards of 200 feet high, six stories high besides the basement and 
 pinnacle, with 209 beautiful marble columns encircling it, and leaning 
 between fifteen and twenty feet from .the perpendicular ! It was 
 built by William of Norimberg and Bonanno of Pisa, in the twelfth 
 century, and has been standing for more than six hundred years. 
 
 Let men of the present day build an edifice like this ; let it stand six 
 hundred years, and then, if it be still firm and uninjured, they may 
 dneer at the darkness of the Middle Ages ! 
 
V. LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 WHAT HAVE THE CATHOLIC CLERGY, AND ESPECIALLY THE MONKS, 
 
 DONE FOR LITERATURE ? 
 
 Modern history unfair—A great conspiracy against the truth—VFhence this unfairness in English 
 writers—Robbery and sacrilege —Origin of modern mamiiinnism — Persecution of slander—\7hat 
 Protestants have said in favor of the Monks—Leibnitz—Ellendorf—Edmund Burke—Raising up 
 the lowly—Giving asylum to the oppressed—Bishop 'fanner—Mallet—Drake —Sharon Turner- 
 Bates—Quarterly Review—Origin of Libraries—Ancient Cljristian Libraries—Cathedral and Mo¬ 
 nastic Libraries—Monks transcribing books—And collecting them into libraries—Care of books 
 enjoined by rule—Zeal of monks in saving books—Principal montistic collections of Manuscripts— 
 Scarcity of books—Agency of the Universities—Religious women engaged as copyists—Writing 
 with golden and silver ink —Illuminated margins—The Scriptorium —h]ti-d.u8 of augmenting Libra¬ 
 ries— lincouragement aflForded by Roman Pontiffs—What we" owe to patient monastic labor— 
 Suiiiinary of what the Clergy and Monks have done for literature. 
 
 Since tlie time of the self-called reformation, the very fountains of 
 history have been polluted. Writers with violent prejudices have been 
 too much in the habit of viewing the history of the good old Catholic 
 times through the gross and distorting medium of their preconceived 
 opinions ; and the result has been, that the pictures they have drawn of 
 those times have scarcely one light or shade true to nature. So false are 
 these, in fact, and so hideously deformed, “ Ut nec caput, nec pes uni 
 reddatur formoe ; ” — “ nor head, nor foot is placed ariglit.” 
 
 Without taking the trouble to consult the original documents, they have, 
 in most cases, blindly and servilely copied one another’s statements ; and 
 thus error has been perpetuated from generation to generation. The 
 public taste in regard to every thing Catholic has been so long, and so 
 deeply, and so widely vitiated, that it requires some moral courage now- 
 a-days to depart from the beaten track of error, and to tell the whole 
 truth, according to the records of faithful history. The man who 
 undertakes this laudable task, runs the risk of having his production 
 treated witli neglect by the community, and abandoned to the moth and 
 dust of some neglected shelf. Books, to he purchased and read, must 
 pander to popular prejudice ; and hence it is that the infection has 
 spread so widely. Avarice in book-makers and book-publishers has been 
 a fruiiful source of historical errors, and consequent popular deceptions. 
 
 To convince ourselves that this is not an exaggerated or unfair state¬ 
 ment, we have only to open any of our w'orks of popular literature, in 
 the English language. From the primer and first books of history 
 96 
 
WHAT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 97 
 
 taught in our preparatory academies, up to works on philosophy and 
 science used in our colleges, almost all are tainted with this stain of 
 prejudice. It is the seasoning which gives them zest. Perhaps, too,-— 
 just to infuse into the tender minds of children a holy horror of 
 “Popery,” — the pages of school-books will be occasionally adorned 
 with beautifully executed wood cuts, representing some scene of horror, in 
 which priests and monks are exhibited as exulting over the agony of 
 tortured victims ! “ Popish cruelty, monkish ignorance and superstition, 
 
 the tyranny, the corruptions and abominations of the Church of Rome, 
 the poor priest-ridden people, the avaricious exactions of the Popes,” — 
 and a thousand such malicious exhibitions of cant, crowded together 
 often without measure or reason,— meet our wearied eye at every page, 
 li is unhappily but too true, then, as the accomplished De Maistre has 
 well said, that during the last three hundred years, history has become 
 a great conspiracy against truth. This is especially the case with historical 
 works written in the English language, in which, as William Cobbett has 
 bluntly, but truly said, “ there are more lies than in books written in all 
 other languages put together.” 
 
 Whence this combination against truth among English writers ? 
 Whence this deep and abiding prejudice against Catholicity, transmitted 
 as a fatal and poisened heritage from England to America ? To detect 
 its source, we need only glance at the history of the so called reformation 
 in England. 
 
 At the beginning of this revolution, the Catholic Church was immensely 
 rich. The property of the churches and of the monasteries had been 
 accumulated during centuries of Catholic charity and liberality. The 
 Church, however, held it only in trust, for the benefit of the public, and 
 especially of the poor. It had been bestowed for this special purpose. 
 The Catholic bishops and clergy, having no families to provide for, 
 naturally left their property to the Church, or for charitable purposes. 
 The spirit, and even the letter, of the canon law compelled them to do 
 this. The poor were thus supported out of a fund, which the piety of 
 ages had created for their benefit. There was then little pauperism, 
 and there were no poor laws in England. The charity and the liberality 
 of the Catholic Church, which was ever the tender mother of the poor, 
 supplied the place of legal enactments and of heavy taxation for their 
 support. Well, when the storm of the reformation broke over England, 
 this vast property was seized upon by the officials of Henry VIII.,. 
 who pounced upon it, as a falcon on its prey. It exchanged hands. 
 It was violently torn from the Church and from the poor, aifd given 
 to the courtiers and courtesans. In one instance, Henry VIII. gave a 
 church estate to a woman, who had made a pudding to suit his royal 
 taste ! Sir Miles Partridge won a ring of church bells from him, by a 
 throw of the dice ! During his reign, and that of his son and 
 successor, Edward VI., the work of sacrilegious spoliation was begun 
 
 and consummated. 
 
 N 
 
 10 
 
08 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGT. 
 
 The Church was thus violently robbed, and her property, diverted 
 from its proper channel of public charity and utility, went to enrich 
 the spoilers, who fattened upon the bounty of a court whose vices they 
 flattered. Avarice was thus seated, in sacrilegious triumph, on the altars 
 which it had stripped and desecrated. And it has been the besetting 
 sin of the world ever since the reformation. It is the image, in fact, 
 stamped upon the minds and characters of mankind by this violent 
 revolution. We refer those who may think this picture exaggerated, 
 to the acts of Parliament, and to the statute book of England.* 
 
 Can we wonder that those, who thus became enriched with the spoils 
 of the Church, should have labored to asperse the character of her 
 ministers, who were the previous holders of the property? It is a prin¬ 
 ciple of perverse human nature, to .hate those whom we have injured; 
 • and the spirit of English Protestant writers, in regard to the Catholic 
 Church, exhibits a frightful carrying out of this wicked maxim. Add 
 to this, that, for nearly two hundred years after the reformation, the 
 Catholic press was gagged in England, and the English Catholics them¬ 
 selves, and especially their natural defenders, the clergy, were subjected 
 to a most cruel persecution; and you have a full solution of the whole 
 y)roblem,— a satisfactory reason, drawn from the nature and facts of the 
 case, for this wide-spread, unchecked, and long-continued persecution 
 of slander against Catholics, and against every thing Catholic. In 
 shaking off the yoke of English tyranny, what a pity that we did not 
 throw off also the more galling yoke of English prejudice! Alas! instead 
 of ridding themselves of this thraldom likewise, our countrymen have 
 courted it rather, and have delighted even to chew the rejected cud of 
 English bigotry ! 
 
 As the world advances in knowledge, and as mankind become calmer 
 .and more earnest in their inquiries after truth, it is to be hoped that a 
 better spirit will dawn, and that the clouds, which now envelop modern 
 history, will be dissipated. 
 
 We propose, in this paper, to lend our humble .aid to the bringing 
 .about of this blessed consummation, by briefly showing what the 
 Catholic Clergy, and especially the Monks, did for Literature before the 
 dawn of the reformation, so called. And that our readers may the more 
 readily follow our line of illustration, we will first show what enlightened 
 Protestant writers have testified on the subject; and secondly, we will 
 •endeavor to prove, from original documents, that the judgment of these 
 distinguished Protestants is based on the genuine facts of history. 
 
 I. Amidst the dark and cloudy night of Protestant prejudice against 
 the Catholic Church, the attentive observer may notice here and there. 
 
 1 William Cobbett has triumphantly established all this and much more : and his two volumes 
 containing “ The History of the Reformation in England,” thougli the spirit they breathe might 
 have been less harsh, have never been answered, for the very obvious reason that the facts they 
 disclose are wholly unanswerable. The second volume contains an elaborate catalogue of the 
 church and monastic property that was seized on or destroyed ; the rental of which he estimates at 
 .6ne-third that of the entire kingdom. 
 
» 
 
 WHAT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 99 
 
 ill the openings of the clouds, a star brightly glimmering, and filling his 
 bosom with hope. The great Leibnitz was one of those “ bright, par¬ 
 ticular stars.” His vast and luminous mind not only led him to eschew 
 prejudice, but conducted him to the very portals of the sublime temple 
 of Catholic truth.* To understand his testimony, we must remark, that 
 the Abbe Ranee, the founder of the order of Trappists in France, was 
 opposed to the special cultivation of Literature by the monks of his order. 
 He wished them rather to spend their time in prayer, and in agricultural 
 pursuits. His opinion was singular, and in fact unprecedented in monas¬ 
 tic history, as we trust to make appear in the course of this essay. The 
 learned Benedictine, Mabillon, entered the lists, and in a very learned and 
 able work on “ Monastic Studies,”^ completely demolished the position 
 of his adversary. Leibnitz, adverting to the same opinion, says: “If that 
 opinion had obtained, we would have no erudition at the present day. 
 For it is manifest that both books and letters have been preserved by 
 the aid of the monasteries.” ^ He instances the famous monastery of 
 Corbeia, “which, through its monks, excelling not less in learning than 
 in piety, spread the light of the faith throughout the entire north” of 
 Europe.^ 
 
 To this splendid testimony in favor of the monks, we add that of 
 Ellendorf, another distinguished German Publicist. He testifies that, 
 “without the clergy, and chiefly without the monks, we would not have 
 now the works of the fathers, nor of the classics.” * We might also, 
 were it deemed necessary, add the testimonies of Voigt, of Hurter,® 
 and of many other late German Protestant writers. Their works are 
 comparatively recent and are well known to the learned; and besides, the 
 passages from their writings which would illustrate our subject, are too 
 numerous and too copious to find a place in a paper ewhich must be 
 necessarily brief. Thus the first part of Europe which rebelled against 
 Catholicity, was also the first to do it a measure of justice. 
 
 Turn we now to England, of which we may say with some truth, 
 what St. Leo the Great said in substance of Pagan Rome : that she has 
 afi'orded an asylum to sects of every hue, and has patronized and 
 ^ defended the errors of all innovators. One of the most accomplished 
 Protestant writers, Edmund Burke, in his “Abridgment of English 
 History,” ^ bears abundant testimony to the services which the English 
 monks of the ''dark” ages rendered to Literature and to civilization. He 
 proves that, besides copying books and gratuitously teaching the poor 
 
 1 In his Systema Theologicum, which the writer of this paper possesses, in German and Latin, 
 this great Protestant Philosopher explains and defends almost every doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church. The work was published after his death, and its authenticity is uncuestioned. 
 
 2 De Studiis Monasticis, vol. i, 4to. 
 
 3 “ Si ea invaluisset opinio, nullam hodie eruditionem haberemus. Constat enim libroa et literaa 
 monasteriorum ope fuisse conservatos.”—Tom. v, 0pp. Ep. 14. 
 
 4 “ Quse, monachis doctrina non minus quam pietate prsestantibus, fidei lumen per totum sep. 
 tentrionem sparsit.”—Ibid. 
 
 5 De Hierarchia, tom. i, c. 4. 6. He has since become a fervent Catholic. 
 
 7 See his works, in three volumes, octavb Vol. ii, ch. ii, p. 514, et Beq. 
 
 % 
 
100 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 in their schools, they instructed the people in agriculture, in the art of 
 fishing, and in various other useful occupations. A desire of the peo¬ 
 ple’s welfare appeared in all their actions. When they received large 
 donations of lands, they immediately baptized and manumitted their new 
 vassals. Thus, baptism, in their eyes, broke the bonds of the slave, and 
 restored him to freedom.* By pursuing this enlightened course, the 
 monks greatly contributed to the destruction of serfism, a species of 
 domestic servitude, which was a part of the older feudal system ; and 
 they raised up the lower orders in the scale of society. To the spirit 
 of the Catholic Church, thus acting through them, and through various 
 other mediums, is Europe mainly indebted for her present civilization, 
 one important element of which was the abolition of serfism. 
 
 In enjoining penance on the great and the rich, they frequently 
 recommended works of public utility: “ Let him also repair the church 
 of Grod ; let him improve the public roads, and build bridges over deep 
 waters and muddy places ; let him manumit his own serfs, and pay for 
 the ransom of those of others, so that these may enjoy liberty.” ^ The 
 monks were also austere and exemplary in their morals, spreading the 
 “sweet odor of Christ” around their humble sphere of life, and render¬ 
 ing virtue lovely in the eyes of the people. They were disinterested and 
 free from the stain of avarice. “ So free,” says the venerable Bede, 
 “were the priests of that time from avarice, that they would not accept 
 of landed property, unless through compulsion.” ^ Finally, according 
 to Burke, in those ages of disorder and civil feud, the monasteries were 
 places of secure refuge for the afflicted and the oppressed. When 
 hunted down by their oppressors, these could fly to the monasteries, 
 which were sacred asylums, respected even by the most lawless. It 
 was the same, by God’s express appointment, under the old law, which 
 provided certain cities of refuge for the forlorn outcast. 
 
 The English Protestant bishop. Tanner, has written a work expressly 
 on the monastic institutions of England and Wales.In the preface to 
 this book, be bears unequivocal testimony to the literary merit and moral 
 worth of’the monks of England. “In every great abbey,” says he, 
 “there was a large room called the Scriptorium, where several writers-; 
 made it their whole business to transcribe books for the use of the library. 
 They sometimes, indeed,*wrote the Leger books of the house, and the 
 Missals, and other books used in divine service ; hut they were generally 
 upon other works: the Fathers, Classics, Histories, etcF^ 
 
 He proceeds to state that John Whethampstead, abbot of St. Albans, 
 caused eighty books to be thus transcribed; and that fifty-eight were 
 
 1 Spellman Council, p. 329; cited by Burke, ibid. 
 
 2 InstJiuret etiani Dei ecclesiam. et instauret Tiaa publicas. pontibus super aquas profundas, et 
 super ceenosas vias; et manumittat servos suos proprios, et rediinat ab aliis boininibus servos suos 
 ad libertatem.—L, Edgari, c. 14. Apud Burke, ibid. 
 
 3 “Adeo enim sacerdores illius temporis erant ab avaritia immunes, ut nec territoria nisi coact® 
 acoipereut.”—Beda, lib. iii, c. 26. 
 
 4. “An Account of all the Abbeys, Priories, and Friaries, formerly existing in England and 
 Wales.’^— lleferred to by Cobbett in his fourth Letter, Nos. 132, et seq. 5 Preface, p. 19, et aeq. , 
 
 # 
 
WHAT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 101 
 
 written out by llie care of the abbot of Glastonbury. He says : “In 
 all the greater abbeys, there were persons appointed to take notice of the 
 principal occurrences of the kingdom, and, at the end of the year, to 
 digest them into annals.” The acts of parliament and of ecclesiastical 
 councils, as well as the great charters of rights, were sent to these abbeys 
 for registration and safe-keeping.' Magna Charta was preserved in them. 
 The monasteries “were schools of learning and education; for every con¬ 
 vent had one person or more appointed for this purpose; and all the 
 neighbors that desired it, might have their children taught grammar and 
 church music, without any expense to them. In the nunneries, also, young 
 women were taught to work, and to read English, and sometimes Latin 
 also. So that not only the lower rank of people, who could not pay for their 
 learning, but most of the noblemen’s and gentlemen’s daughters were 
 educated in those places.”^ 
 
 We are constrained to omit several other passages, in which the Angli¬ 
 can bishop bears willing testimony to the monasteries of England, as 
 hospitals for the poor, — as houses of free entertainment for all travelers, 
 — as places of great advantage to the common people living in their 
 vicinity, by making them easy tenants, and by furnishing a ready market 
 for whatever they were able to produce on the soil, — and finally, as 
 great architectural ornaments of the country. 
 
 To this unexceptionable testimony of an English Protestant bishop, 
 we add the following Protestant evidence on the same subject. Mallet, 
 the historian of Switzerland, says: “ The monks softened by their in¬ 
 structions the ferocious manners of the people, and opposed their credit 
 to the tyranny of the nobility, who knew no other occupation than war, 
 and grievously oppressed their neighbors. On this.account the govern¬ 
 ment of monks was preferred to theirs. The people sought them for 
 judges. It was an usual saying, that ^ it was better to be governed by a 
 bishop’s crozieVf than by the monarch’s scepter’”^ 
 
 Drake assures us, on the authority of Warton, 
 
 “ That the monks of Monte Cassino (in Italy), were distinguished, not 
 only for their knowledge of science, but for their attention to polite 
 learning, and their acquaintance with the classics. Their learned abbot, 
 Desiderius, collected the best Greek and Roman authors. The fraternity 
 not only composed learned treatises on music, logic, astronomy, and the 
 Vitruvian architecture, but likewise employed a portion of their time in 
 transcribing Tacitus, etc., etc. This laudable example was, in the eleventh 
 and twelfth centuries, followed with great spirit and emulation by many 
 English monasteries.”^ 
 
 Sharon Turner, in his History of England, speaks of the monasteries 
 after this wise : 
 
 “ No tyranny was ever established, that was more unequivocally the 
 creature of popular will, nor longer maintained by popular support: in 
 
 1 Ibid. 2 Ibid. 3 History of the Swiss, toI. i, p. 105. 4 Literary Hours, vol. ii. p. 435. 
 
 N2 
 
102 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 no point did personal interest and public welfare more cordially unite, 
 than in the encouragement of monasteries.”* 
 
 Bates, another Protestant writer, recommends the establishment in 
 England of a species of Protestant nunneries for the instruction of young 
 ladies, in order to counteract the influence of Catholic female convents. 
 He says : 
 
 “Thus might the comfort and welfare of many individuals be promoted 
 to the great benefit of society at large, and the interests of popery, by 
 improving on its own principles, be considerably counteracted.”^ 
 
 Protestants, some years ago, tried this experiment in London, but the 
 affair turned out an utter failure. However, the elopements extraordinary 
 which broke up the attempted establishment, were perhaps “ an improve¬ 
 ment on the principles of popery ! ” The whole business, like all other 
 previous attempts at reformation by Protestants, ended, as Erasmus had 
 caustically observed, “in the comedy of marriage!” Alas! Protest¬ 
 antism has not vitality enough for such undertakings. 
 
 We will close this mass of Protestant testimony, by a beautiful passage 
 from the Quarterly Review, for December, 1811: 
 
 “ The world has never been so much indebted to any other body of 
 men, as to the illustrious Order of Benedictine monks. . . Tinian and 
 Juan Fernandez are not more beautiful spots on the ocean, than Malmes¬ 
 bury, Lindisfarne, and Jarrow were in the ages of our heptarchy. A 
 community of pious men devoted to literaiure, and to the useful arts, as 
 well as to religion, seems in those days like a green Oasis amid the desert. 
 Like stars on a moonless night, they shine upon us with a tranquil ray. 
 If ever there was a man who could truly be called venerable, it was he to 
 whom the appellation is constantly fixed, Bede, whose life was passed in 
 instructing his own generation, and preparing records for posterity. In 
 those days the Church offered the only asylum from the evils to which 
 every country was exposed, — amidst continual wars, the Church enjoyed 
 peace, — it was regarded as a sacred realm by men, who, though they 
 hated one another, believed in and feared the same God. . . The wise as 
 well as the timid and gentle fled to the Goshen of God, which enjoyed 
 its own light and calm amidst darkness and storms.” 
 
 II. According to our plan, we will now endeavor to prove, that this 
 Protestant homage paid to the institutions of the Catholic Church is 
 based upon the facts of anthentic history, derived from original docu¬ 
 ments. And while pursuing this line of illustration, we will be enabled 
 to see more in detail what the Catholic Clergy and the Monks have done 
 for Literature. 
 
 Before the invention of the art of printing by Guttenberg and his 
 associates, about the year 1436, the scarcity of books was perhaps the 
 greatest difficulty with which Literature had to struggle. Books, which 
 could be multiplied only by the tedious process of copying by hand, 
 
 1 Vol ii, pp. 332 and 361. We suppose that hard word tyranny was thrown in as a douceur to 
 IProtestant prejudice It requires more acute optics than ours to perceive how that can be “tyranny,” 
 which is “ unequivocally the creature of popular will,” and which combines “ personal interest and 
 puhlir welfare.” 2 “ Rural Philosophy,” p. 322. 
 
WHAT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 103 
 
 were necessarily scarce and dear. It cost a man almost the labor of a 
 life-time, to obtain even a scanty library by this means. At the present 
 day, when books have been so vastly n^ultiplied, we can hardly form an 
 adequate idea of the obstacles which our forefathers had to overcome in the 
 middle ages. It ill becomes us to sneer at their ignorance, when, due 
 allowance being made for the difficulty of their position in this respect, 
 they might perhaps compare advantageously with us, in ardor and zeal 
 for the promotion of learning. Besides, by their patient labor in the 
 transcription of books, they preserved for us the treasures of ancient 
 Latin and Greek Literature, — to say nothing of the Fathers and of the 
 sacred writings,—and they thereby laid the foundation of modern lite-. 
 rature, and made \t 2 i 0 ssible for us to be learned. Gratitude for a service 
 so important, should incline us to leniency in judging of their pi ogress 
 in letters. But they need not our mercy ; all tliey demand is our justice. 
 If they be judged according to this standard, they will not suflbr by 
 comparison even with our enlightened age, every thing being taken into 
 the account. 
 
 Tlie history of the formation and preservation of libraries before the 
 art of printing, is one of the most interesting and useful branches of 
 literary inquiry. It is an investigation intimately connected with the 
 advancement of learning during the middle ages, as well as with its 
 present condition. Those who founded and multiplied libraries deserve 
 the immortal gratitude of this age. We propose to show: 1st, how 
 libraries were founded throughout the Christian world, at the period in 
 question, and what agency the Catholic clergy had in their establish¬ 
 ment ; and 2dly, how, and by what means, these libraries were increased 
 and multiplied over the world. 
 
 1. Religion and Literature were always cultivated together. The 
 library grew up with the school, under the shadow of the Church. 
 Libraries were attached to most of the ancient churches, particularly to 
 those of the patriarchal, metropolitan, and episcopal sees. Eusebius tells 
 us of his frequent visits to the library attached to the cathedral church 
 of Caesarea. St. Jerome, in his Letters, often speaks of that connected 
 with the church at Jerusalem. But the most famous collections of books 
 among the ancient Christians were those at Rome, Alexandria, and Con¬ 
 stantinople. That of Rome, in the famous Lateran Basilica, was founded 
 by St. Hilary, a Pope of the sixth century. It was divided into two 
 departments : the private, or that of the archives of the Roman church, 
 and the public or classical, to which all could have access.' 
 
 Of the three libraries just mentioned, that of Rome alone has been 
 preserved to our day. Transferred to the Vatican, it has shared the 
 immortality of the “ eternal city; ” and it is at the present day the one 
 which is most famous for old manuscripts, and the richest in ancient, 
 lore. The suite of rooms in which it is contained, is nearly a quarter of 
 a mile long, and it is surpassingly rich and splendid. The library of Con- 
 
 1 Vide Atiasta.siu8 Bibliothecarius, — in Vita Hilarii. 
 
104 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 Stan tinople, containing about one hundred thousand manuscript volumes, 
 was destroyed in one of tliose popular seditions so common in that city 
 during the middle ages. That of Alexandria, supposed to contain no 
 less than seven hundred thousand manuscript tomes, was burnt by order 
 of the Caliph Omar, about the year 632. Its loss was an irreparable 
 blow to Literature.. Perhaps hundreds of works of the fathers, and of 
 the ancient classics perished in that one brief conflagration. 
 
 In Germany, the cathedrals of Hamburg, Bamberg, Cologne, Pader- 
 born, and many others, had extensive libraries adjoining them. Those 
 attached to the cathedrals of England were no less famous.* The library 
 was often a part of the church building itself. Among ancient writers, 
 it was called by different names ; — Secretarium, Chartarium, Archiviurriy 
 Scrinmm, Lihrariiim, etc. St. Gregory the Great, about the year 600, 
 wrote to Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, who had asked him for a 
 particular work : “ That the book he sought for could not be found, 
 either in the archives of the Roman Church, or in the other collections 
 of the city: ” — which passage proves that there were many libraries in Rome, 
 at the close of the sixth century. 
 
 The agency of the Catholic clergy, both secular and regular, in forming 
 the ancient libraries, is manifest from every document connected with the 
 history of those establishments. Even in pagan times, the priesthood had 
 been entrusted with the guardianship of books, profane as well as sacred. 
 In ancient Rome, the temples of Apollo Palatine, of Peace, and of the 
 Capitol, and in Egypt that of Serapis, were the depositories of books, of 
 which the priests had charge. The Catholic clergy were always the chief 
 librarians in the early times of the Church, and particularly in the middle 
 ages. The Emperor Justinian ordered that copies of his laws should be 
 kept in the principal churches of the empire, with as much care as the 
 sacred vases. In many episcopal cities, such as Rome, Hippo, Yercelli, and 
 Tours, the clergy lived in common with the bishop, and conducted flour¬ 
 ishing schools under his eye. There were also schools adjoining the other 
 cathedral, and even the principal parochial churches. This created a ne¬ 
 cessity for books. And accordingly, we find that those places were the 
 ■nuclei of the most extensive libraries in Europe. 
 
 But the monks distinguished themselves most, both in the collection of 
 books, and in the founding of libraries. Monasteries were founded in the 
 east, as early as the fourth century. The rule of St. Pachomius enters into 
 the most minute details, concerning the necessity of taking care of the books 
 -contained in the monastic library. Two monks were appointed in each 
 house for this purpose. Each one was directed to have his own reading 
 book. There were from thirty to forty houses belonging to this order, with 
 an average of forty monks in each; so that the total number of monks was 
 -between twelve and sixteen hundred. The number of books was, by the 
 monastic rule just alluded to, at least as great. And yet this monastic 
 
 1 See Ileeren, Opp. 1, 65. 
 
WHAT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 105 
 
 order made no special profession of letters; and the monks belonging to i^ 
 were, many of them, simple and unlearned. 
 
 In the sixth century, the great Cassiodorus bequeathed his library, which 
 he had collected with incredible labor, to the Solitaries; knowing “ that 
 among them alone could the faint rays of science be gathered together, 
 increase, and form a great light, to enlighten the nations.” St. Augustine, 
 in his last will, recommended his library to the care of his priests, who 
 lived in common with him, under a rule drawn up by himself. So great 
 was the importance attached to the preservation of the monastic libraries, 
 that St. Gregory the Great, himself a Benedictine monk, instituted a legal 
 process in order to have a book restored to a monastery. The forty monks 
 whom this sainted Pontiff sent out with St. Augustine to labor for the con¬ 
 version of England, carried many books with them, and among others, a 
 Homer.' We may as well state here, as elsewhere, that many ancient 
 bishops were in the habit of carrying their books with them while traveling. 
 This was the practice of St. Burchard, who flourished, A. D. 761; and of 
 St. Bruno, who died 965. The disciples of Ratherius, the famous bishop 
 of Verona, who lived in the tenth century, always sent his books before him, 
 in his numerous journeys through Europe. Among these was a copy of 
 Plautus, and another Of Terence. 
 
 St. Bennet Biscop founded the famous Abbey of Weremouth in England, 
 A. D. 674. He traversed Europe no less than five times, in order to collect 
 books, and to establish a library in this his cherished monastery. The 
 venerable Bede tells us that, by means of these peregrinations, “he brought 
 into England an almost innumerable quantity of books of every kind.”^ 
 These, on dying, he bequeathed to his disciples, holding them responsible 
 before God for their preservation. His love for learning was thus his ruling 
 passion, strong even in death. The abbots Ceolfrid and Egbert contributed 
 much towards increasing this venerable library. 
 
 The great Alcuin, in the beginning of the ninth century, wrote in Latin 
 verse a catalogue of the books belonging to the famous library at York. 
 From this catalogue, which is still extant, it appears that York then pos¬ 
 sessed the works of most of the fathers, as well as of the ancient classics. 
 
 The libraries of the monasteries were often called armoria, or armories. 
 The abbot of the monastery of Beaugency, in the twelfth century, assigns 
 the reason for this name, by observing, that “libraries are as essential to 
 monasteries, as armories are to armies in time of war.” The saying of 
 Mathias Mittner, in the sixteenth century, was a stated maxim among the 
 monks of the middle ages : Ignorance is everywhere the mother of vice 
 
 The care which the monks were bound by their rule to take of their 
 books, is truly astonishing. At Citeaux, a reader was not allowed to leave 
 his book alone, even for a moment; he was obliged to replace it in the 
 armory, or leave it in charge of another. St. Isidore directed that books 
 
 1 See Lingard’s Antiquities of the Anglo Saxon ('hurch. ch. x. 
 
 2 Innumerabileui omuis generis copiani (libroruiii)cum apportasse.” 
 8 “ Ignorautia ubique multorum lualoruiu esi mater.’’ 
 
106 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 should be retiirned to the libraryevery evening. The rule of the great 
 Chartreuse monastery directs, that “books be most cautiously and diligently 
 kept, as the food of our souls.” The abbot Riquier (eleventh century), at 
 the close of a catalogue of books he had drawn up, exclaims: “ This is the 
 vrealth of the cloister,—these are the riches of the heavenly life !”' 
 
 These and similar facts may serve to explain to us how it is, that in enter¬ 
 ing many of the libraries of Europe at the present day, we often read over the 
 door an inscription, threatening excommunication against any one who will 
 dare remove a book without the proper authority. This is a relict of mediaeval 
 solicitude for the preservation of books. Our own carelessness at the pres¬ 
 ent time is rebuked by the ardent love of books in the olden days, at the 
 ignorance of which we often nevertheless most unwittingly sneer. 
 
 Towards the close of the fifteenth century, Trithemius collected no less 
 than two thousand volumes of valuable manuscripts. In his learned chron¬ 
 icles of the abbeys of Spanheim and Hirschau in Germany, he shows how 
 much we are indebted to the monks for the preservation of ancient learning. 
 Though the monasteries were generally held sacred, even by the barbarians,- 
 yet they were sometimes destroyed. In such cases, the books were saved 
 by the monks in preference to any other property. Trithemius tells us, that 
 when the monastery of Rossano was destroyed by the Saracens, in the tenth 
 century, the holy abbot Nilus retired to Rome, deeply chagrined; and he 
 reckons the parting witli his books the greatest trial which this good man 
 ever had to encounter. In 883, the abbey of Fleury was destroyed; but 
 the books were saved by the care of the monks. So also, when the abbey 
 of St. Gall was attacked by the Madgars' in the tenth century, the monks 
 fled to the mountains, carrying nothing with them but their books. The 
 monks of Monte Cassino, when this monastery was assailed by the Lom¬ 
 bards, in 685, had likewise the good fortune to save their library. To show 
 the value set on books by the monks, the following fact may be adduced. 
 St. Fulard, abbot of St, Dennis, in the eighth century, in a schedule of the 
 property belonging to the monastery at his death, places the books imme¬ 
 diately after the gold and silver. 
 
 The library of Spanheim, in Germany, contained two thousand volumes 
 in the fifteenth century. According to the testimony of one of its monks, 
 that of Novalaise in Piedmont contained, in the tenth century, more than 
 six thousand books.^ Leland, the libiarian of Henry VIII., testifies that 
 there were seventeen hundred manuscripts in tlie abbey of Peterborough 
 in England. He also states that the library of the Franciscans in London 
 was one hundred and twenty-nine feet long, and thirty-one Jeet broad, and 
 that it was “ well filled with books;” and that the abbey of Wells had a 
 library with twenty-five windows on each side. According to Ingulphus, 
 the library of Crowland had seven hundred volumes, when it was burned 
 in 1090. 
 
 What has become of all these once splendid libraries, collected and pre- 
 
 1 “Use sunt divitiae claustrales, — haesunt opulentiaj vitae coelestis!'’ 
 
 2 See Eugenii de hesyls.Anecdota Sacra, I’raef. xxviii. 
 
WHAT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 107 
 
 served with so much care by the monks of the darh ages ? Alas ! they 
 have been, almost all of them, dilapidated or wholly destroyed. The 
 Goths, Vandals, and Saracens, were not the only enemies of learning, nor 
 the only destroyers of libraries. Those who have been so much in the 
 habit of sneering at “monkish ignorance and superstition,” are the very 
 ones to whom we are indebted, in a great measure, for this work of des¬ 
 truction ! The reformation enkindled a fire which consumed them. The- 
 spoilers under Henry VIII. and Edward VI. destroyed many of those 
 attached to the abbeys in England and not to multiply facts, the library 
 of St. Benedict sur Loire, with five thousand volumes, was burned by the 
 Hu guenots in the sixteenth century. 
 
 2. By what means were the ancient libraries augmented and multiplied 
 over Europe ? We answer unhesitatingly, that it was chiefly by the pa¬ 
 tient labor and perseyering industry of the monks, who flourished in the 
 darh ages. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, slaves w'ere employed 
 in the irksome occupation of copying books. The task of transcribing 
 books, in Christian times, devolved chiefly on the monks, as we shall now 
 proceed to show by undeniable facts. 
 
 Before the invention of the art of printing, it was very difficult to be¬ 
 come an author. He who aspired to this enviable distinction, imposed on 
 himself a labor truly Herculean. He had to travel from place to place, in 
 quest of the manuscripts to which he wished to refer. These he was often 
 obliged to correct, by collating them with one another; and, as he was not 
 generally allowed to transport them from their place, in order to make the 
 collation, he had frequently to stop and sit down patiently to the task of 
 transcribing them, which was a work of months,—sometimes of years. 
 Thus whole years of indefatigable industry were required, merely as a 
 novitiate to authorship. We doubt whether at this day half the number 
 of books would be composed, as we know to have been written in the 
 middle ages, if so many obstacles had first to be overcome. 
 
 The great scarcity of books, which mainly induced all this labor, con¬ 
 tinued till about the middle of the thirteenth century. From ihis date, man¬ 
 uscripts became more abundant, especially in the great cities wliere the 
 universities were established. Thus, in the year 1325, there were at¬ 
 tached to the university of Paris twenty-three statlonarii, or stationed book¬ 
 sellers, of whom two were women. Besides these, there were also a great 
 many traveling hawkers of manuscripts. In order to obtain a license to 
 sell, these booksellers were bound by law to take an oath to observe the 
 regulations of the university, which forbade them to sell any books to 
 strangers, or to keep on hand for sale any works besides those commonly 
 used by the students. The motives of these local regulations seem to have 
 been : to make the books used in the university cheaper, by creating a 
 greater demand for them, and to keep the minds of the students from be¬ 
 ing distracted by reading woiks foreign to their course of study. 
 
 What we have just said of the university of Paris, may be also observed 
 
 1 See Cobbett’s History of the Keformation, vol, ii, for abundant proofs of this. 
 
 
108 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 of those of Bologna, Rome, Padua, Pavia, Perugia, Naples, Salamanca, 
 Valladolid, Alcala, Oxford, and Cambridge ; attached to all of which were 
 UbliopolcR, or booksellers, bound by certain university regulations. 
 
 How were the shops of these booksellers filled with books ? And how 
 were the libraries of books, not kept on sale, maintained and augmented ? 
 In those distracted times, temporal princes had neither time nor inclination 
 to copy manuscripts themselves, nor sufficient zeal for letters to induce 
 them to employ copyists. The bishops and the secular clergy were in 
 general too much occupied, to devote much time to this laborious duty. 
 This task devolved chiefly on the monks, who lived in common, and had 
 more leisure. To render the profession of copyist permanent and gene¬ 
 rally useful, required the joint labor of many acting in concert, under a 
 rule which enjoined obedience, and recommended labor for the love of 
 God. The monastic institute alone possessed these requisites, and offered 
 motives so exalted for patient industry. 
 
 Prompted by views thus lofty, even religious ladies in the convents not 
 unfrequently employed their time in transcribing books. Eusebius, the 
 father of church history, speaks of young virgins employed as copyists by 
 ecclesiastical writers of the first four centuries. Even as early as the days 
 of Tatian, in the second century, the zeal of religious women for letters 
 excited the bile, and provoked the satire of the enemies of Christianity. 
 In the fifth century, St. Melania, the Younger, is praised by her biographer 
 for the exactness, beauty, and rapidity of her writing. St. Caesaria, and 
 her co-religious in the sixth century, acquired great reputation for the 
 same accomplishments.’ In the eighth century, St. Boniface, the apostle 
 of Germany, writing to an abbess, prays her to copy in golden letters the 
 epistles of St. Peter.^ 
 
 • We may here remark, by the way, that the art of writing with golden 
 and silver ink, now disused if not wholly lost, seems to have been very 
 common in the dark ages. Many ancient manuscripts in tins beautiful 
 writing are still preserved. The writer of this paper, some few years ago, 
 saw in the Vatican library at Rome, a splendid copy of a Greek New Tes¬ 
 tament written entirely in letters of gold. It is said to have been executed 
 at Constantinople, in the eleventh or twelfth century. 
 
 Who that has visited the ancient libraries, has not admired the beautiful 
 penmanship, the tasty marginal decorations, and the splendid pictorial 
 illustrations, of many among the old illuminated manuscripts In many 
 of these exquisite ornaments, the delicate hand of woman is readily traced. 
 SS. Hamilda and Renilda, two Belgian abbesses of the ninth century, 
 employed their time in transcribing manuscripts. An abbot of tlie Pre- 
 monstrats in the thirteenth century, while traveling to collect books, pre- 
 
 1 See Miibillon —Acta Ord. S. Benedicti^ Tom. i, p, 668, et seq. 2 Epist. 28. 
 
 3 See on this interesting subject, two or three articles in that excellent French religious and 
 philosophical monthly publication, Annales de la Philosophic Chretienne. The writer of those papers 
 proves, by abundant evidence, to what perfection penmanship and miniature painting werecarried 
 in the middle ages. 
 
109 
 
 
 _ 
 
 WHAT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 vailed on several religious ladies of Flanders to aid him in transcribing 
 them. * 
 
 All the monastic orders employed copyists among their inmates. St. 
 Jerome and St. Ephrem of Edessa, strongly recommended this useful oc* 
 cupation to the eastern cenobites. The monks of St. Martin of Tours had 
 no other manual labor.^ In the sixth century, St. Ferreol laid down this 
 rule for his monks : “let him paint the page with his hand, who does not 
 cultivate the earth with the plow.”® About the same time, the retired 
 Roman senator Cassiodorus, while in his ninety-third year, wrote in his 
 cloister of Virarium a special treatise on orthography. He was enthu¬ 
 siastic in recommending to the monks the employment of transcribing 
 books. He calls it a godlike occupation, “multiplying celestial words, 
 speaking to the absent, wounding Satan.” Thus was the painful labor of 
 the copyist ennobled and hallowed by the lofty motives of religion ! 
 
 Next came the Benedictines, who, according to the testimony of St. 
 Gregory the Great, were engaged, from the very infancy of their order, 
 “in tilling the soil, and in transcribing manuscripts.” We have already 
 seen, from Protestant authority, how much Literature is indebted to. this 
 illustrious order. Every monastery had a Scriptorium, or a hall specially 
 set apart for copying books. Alcuin recommends to those engaged in this 
 occupation the strictest silence, in order to prevent mutual interruption, 
 and to avoid dissipation of the mind, which, during so noble an employ¬ 
 ment, should be centered in God ! The greater monasteries generally em¬ 
 ployed at least twelve copyists. For this duty, not only the younger 
 monks, but often those of greater age and celebrity,—such as Alcuin, 
 Dunstan, etc., were selected. 
 
 The monks were not, in fact, mere blind copyists ; they were often men 
 of learning, who carefully collated and corrected the manuscripts they 
 were engaged in transcribing. As early as the sixth century, one of the 
 oldest monks of the monastery of Mesmin, near Orleans in France, was 
 employed in arranging and collating the books of the monastic library.'* 
 Alcuin, in the ninth age, was employed by Charlemagne in collating the 
 manuscripts of the Bible, with a view to its correction. Charlemagne 
 himself devoted part of his time to comparing various manuscripts of the 
 four Gospels. About the same time. Lupus, abbot of Ferrieres, em¬ 
 ployed his leisure hours in transcribing and collating the manuscripts of 
 the library belonging to his monastery. He mentions Sallust and other 
 classical works, on which he was thus laboring.® In his Letters, he thanks 
 Ansbald, abbot of Prum, for a copy of Cicero’s Epistles; and Adalpard, 
 for a revised copy of Macrobius. 
 
 One of the greatest literati of the middle ages, was the monk Gerbert, 
 afterwards Pope Sylvester II. In one of his many Epistles,® he earnestly 
 
 1 Le Beuf, Autogr. c. 1. 2 Sulpitius Severus, Vita S. Martini —Tii. 
 
 3 “ Pagmam, pingat digito, qui terram non proscindit aratro." 
 
 4 See Petit Radel, Bibliotheq. p. 46. 
 
 5 Epist. ad Regimbert, 104. 6 Epistola, 7. 
 
 0 
 
• 
 
 110 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 recommended a revision and correction of the works of Pliny,—a labor, 
 says he, which required great knowledge and critical skill. St. Anselm, 
 writing to the archbishop of Canterbury, begs the loan of various books for 
 the use of the monastery of Bee in Normandy, over which he then pre¬ 
 sided ; but he desires that only the most correct copies be sent.* Lan- 
 franc’s revised edition of the holy Scriptures is well known by the 
 learned, who justly prize it for its accuracy. In the Grand Chartreuse, 
 the corrections to be made by the copyists were decided on in full chapter 
 of the monastery. 
 
 The armarius bihliothecarius, or librarian, was an officer of exalted 
 dignity, both at court and in the libraries, especially in those of the monks. 
 He had under his supervision a number of skillful copyists. The distance 
 of place, and the difficulty of communication in those unsettled times, 
 were great obstacles to the general collation and correction of manuscripts 
 These difficulties were, however, boldly met, and courageously overcome 
 by the monks. Books were often interchanged. Thus Servatus Lupus and 
 Eginhard were in the habit of exchanging works between their respective 
 monasteries of Ferrieres and Fulda. The former, in a letter to the Abbot 
 Alsig of York, asks for the loan of the works of Quintillian, as also of 
 various works of St. Jerome, Bede, and other fathers; and he proposes a 
 bond of the holiest friendship, to be based upon the intercommunication 
 of prayers and books between the two monasteries of Ferrieres and 
 York. 
 
 Besides the Scriptorium, the monasteries possessed various other re¬ 
 sources for augmenting their libraries. The liberality of princes and of 
 the people was often successfully appealed to, for this laudable purpose. 
 Certain seignorial rights over the territory adjoining them, were another 
 abundant resource. Many monasteries had also special rules contemplating 
 the same object. Some required the novice, at his entrance into the reli¬ 
 gious order, to contribute something towards the library, or to furnish a 
 copy of some work which was rare. Others had a rule which required 
 scholars frequenting the monastic schools, to furnish each year two volumes 
 of manuscripts transcribed by themselves. By all these means, and above 
 all, by the patient industry of the monks, the monastic libraries became 
 the richest treasures of Literature in the middle ages. In what is by 
 many considered the darkest and most barren age of this period,—the 
 tenth century,—we have already seen that the library of St. Benedict sur 
 Loire had five thousand volumes; and that of Novalaise, in Piedmont, 
 upwards of six thousand. 
 
 Throughout that whole period, Italy was the center of Literature, as 
 well as the grand repository of books. The zeal of the Roman Pontifis- 
 for the diffusion of learning, and for the distribution of books throughout 
 the Christian world, canjiot be sufficiently appreciated and admired. St. 
 Gregory the Great was written to repeatedly on this subject, from Gaul 
 and even from Alexandria.^ St. Martin I. received petitions for books 
 
 1 8. Anselnii, Epistolw, b. i, 43. 2 S. Gregorii, Epistolae, xl, 66. 
 
^\)1AT HAVE THE MONKS DONE? 
 
 Ill 
 
 from Belgium and from Spain.* Pope Paul I. was asked by Pepin for 
 Greek works, tx) be placed in the library of St. Dennis: among them were 
 Aristotle, a treatise on Geometry, probably Euclid, and many others. 
 Gerbert wrote no less than thirteen Epistles,^ some of them to Roman Pon¬ 
 tiffs, to ask for books. Among the works he most desired, were “ Mami- 
 , lius,—de Astronomia,'* “ Victorinus,—de Rhetorica,” and those of Lupitus 
 of Barcelona. 
 
 We have thus endeavored to show, both from Protestant authority, and 
 from original documents,—What the Catholic Clergy, and especially the 
 Monks, have done for Literature. The facts we have alleged must be 
 blotted from the pages of history, before we can excuse many Protestant 
 historians for charging the Catholic Church with fostering ignorance, and 
 for habitually sneering at “monkish indolence and superstition.” W^ithout 
 the generous and patient labors of these much abused men, how many of 
 the works of the ancients, think you, would have been transmitted to us? 
 Without them, the middle ages would have been a yawning gulf, which 
 would have swallowed up all the literary treasures of antiquity. Without 
 their indefatigable industry, we would not now be able to feast on the 
 eloquence of Cicero and Demosthenes, nor to be charmed with the beauti¬ 
 ful strains of Homer and Virgil. 
 
 The monks have been often charged with wantonly destroying many of 
 the most valuable classical works of antiquity, in order to use the parch¬ 
 ment on which they were written for copying out comparatively insignifi¬ 
 cant treatises on piety, or legends of the saints. But is it either just or 
 fair to charge on the whole body of monks what was done by very few of 
 their members, and by these only when pressed for the want of writing 
 material necessary for transcribing books in daily use among them ? ^ Are 
 we to lose sight of the general, persevering, and almost inconceivable 
 literary labors of this illustrious body of men, merely because, here and 
 there, an ignorant monk could not properly appreciate a work of the ancient 
 classics ? 
 
 Besides, how can the accusers of the monks prove, that in more than 
 one or two instances any classical work was really lost, even for a time, by 
 the very rare act of copying another work on, the same parchment ? How 
 can they show that when this took place, there was only one copy of the 
 work thus mutilated, in the world? Yet they should establish all this to 
 make good their accusation. 
 
 Again; in naost of the instances in which we know of this abuse having 
 occurred, the original work was not destroyed, but only obscured. And 
 who was it that taught Europe how to decipher those hitherto hidden 
 writings? Who, by skill and patient industry, revealed the hidden mys¬ 
 teries of the Palimpsests, and discovered the lost work of Cicero,—De 
 
 1 Baronius, Annales ad Ann, 649. 2 Ep. 130, et aliae. 
 
 3 Aft<r the subjugation of Egypt by the Sar*cens, in the seventh century, the supply of papyrus 
 •was cutoff, and Europe suffered greatly from the scarcity of writing material. Muratori thinks 
 that wc are to ascribe, in a great measure, to the fact just mentioned the subsequent decline of let¬ 
 ters in Europe. 
 
112 LITERATURE AND THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 
 
 Republica? Was it one of the loudly boasting, and bitterly sneering 
 literati of Protestant Germany or England? No. It was an ex-Jesuit,—• 
 a Roman priest, living at Rome,—afterwards Cardinal Mai! And this 
 was but one of his splendid literary achievements !' 
 
 To conclude ; it was a monk,—Roger Bacon,—who first discovered 
 and explained those principles which, a little later, led another monk,— 
 Schwartz, of Cologne,—to invent gunpowder; and which, more fully 
 developed some centuries afterwards by the great Catholic philosopher, 
 Galileo, enabled him to invent the microscope and the telescope. It was 
 a monk,— Salvino of Pisa,—who, in the twelfth century, invented spec¬ 
 tacles for the old and for the shortsighted. To the monks,— Pacifico of 
 Verona, the great Gerbert, and William, abbot of Hirschau,—we owe the 
 invention of clocks, some time between the tenth and twelfth centuries. 
 It was the monks, who in the middle ages, taught the people agriculture, 
 and who, by their skillful industry, reclaimed whole tracts of waste land. 
 It was the monks who first cultivated botany, and made known the hidden 
 medicinal properties of plants. It is to the monks, that we are in all 
 probability indebted for the paper on which we write. 
 
 It was the monk Gerbert; who first introduced into Europe the arith¬ 
 metical numbers of the Arabs, A. D. 991, and who thus laid the foundation 
 of arithmetical and mathematical studies. It was a Spanish Benedictine 
 monk,—Pedro da Ponce,—who, A. D. 1570, first taught Europe the art 
 of instructing the deaf and dumb. It was a French Catholic priest,—the 
 Abbe Haiiy,'—who, in a work published towards the close of the last 
 century, first unfolded the principles of the modern science of mineralogy. 
 It was a Catholic priest,—Nicholas Copernicus,—who, in the beginning 
 of the sixteenth century, promulgated the theory of a system of the world, 
 appropriately called after him, the Copernicariy which is now generally 
 received, and which led to the brilliant discoveries of Kepler and Galileo, 
 and formed the basis of the splendid mathematical demonstrations of 
 Newton and La Place. 
 
 Finally, it is to the missionary zeal of Catholic priests that we are 
 indebted for most of our earliest maritime and geographical knowledge. 
 The Catholic priest always accompanied voyages of discovery and 
 expeditions of conquest; often stimulating the former by his zeal for the 
 salvation of souls, and softening down the rigors of the latter by the 
 exercise of his heroic charity. Catholic priests were, at all times, the 
 pioneers of civilization ; and the Cross always accompanied, it sometimes 
 went before, the banner of mere earthly dominion. 
 
 1 Those who may wish to see more on this highly interesting subject, are referred to Bingham 
 De Antiquis Ecclesiae Scholis et Bibliothecis, tome iii; to Hospinianus, De Templis ; to Komeier, D« 
 Bibliothecis ; to Mabillon, De Studiis Monasticis. and Acta Ord. S. Benedicti; and to a series of Tery 
 learned articles on the subject, in some late numbers of the Annales de la Philosophie Chretienue 
 already mentioned. 
 
VI. SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE “DARK” 
 
 AGES. 
 
 Protestant boasting—Light and darkness—Revival of letters and the Reformation—Early and recent 
 persecution of slander compared—Gibbon—Protestant theory—Lame argument—Early Christian 
 Schools—Plato and Aristotle—Irish Schools—Afid Irish Scholars—Cathedral Schools—Char¬ 
 lemagne and Alfred—Councils ordering the erection of Schools—The monasteries - And nioiiastic 
 Schools—What was therein taught—Schools for the nobility—Signing in cipher—Female Acade¬ 
 mies— Literary ladies—Universities—In Italy—England—And France — Statement of Danielo 
 examined—Curious incident iu the history of the University of Paris—Three qualities of mediajval 
 Schools and Universities stated and established—Who first founded Free Schools ? —Glance at 
 modern Universities, 
 
 Of all the puffs of this puffing age, none has been louder or of longer 
 continuance, than that which has vaunted the triumphs of Protestantism in 
 the matter of education. By dint of constant boasting, Protestant writers 
 have almost persuaded the world, that its rise from barbarism, its enlight¬ 
 enment in literature, its progress in science and art, its present civilization, 
 are all ascribable to the revolution, called by its friends the reformation ; and 
 tliat before that blessed event, all was darkness and wide-spread desola¬ 
 tion. The Church sat down in the midst of this darkness, quite at home 
 and at her ease : she made no effort to dissipate the gloom ; she fostered 
 it rather, as the thing above all others most suited to her wicked purpose, 
 of infusing into the minds of men the deadly poison of error and super¬ 
 stition ! 
 
 Such is the proudly boasting theory, which Protestant writers have 
 sought to establish, rather by bold and reckless assertion, than by calm 
 and solid argument. Verily, if history did not inform us, that a Catholic 
 first invented steam navigation,' we should be greatly tempted to ascribe 
 that invention also to the reformation ! Since this religious revolution, 
 there has been in the world one continual puff ! puff'!! puff! ! !—and, 
 amidst the accompanying noise and smoke, men’s minds have been scarcely 
 calm enough to form a correct judgment on the true facts of history. The 
 Catholic Church, on the contrary, has boasted little, and done much ; with¬ 
 out vaunting her literary triumphs, she has really been the foundress of 
 Schools and Universities, the fosterer of arts and sciences, and the mother 
 of inventions; as will abundantly appear, we think, from the fact embo- 
 
 1 Rliisco do Garay, a Spaniard, first constructed a Steam Engine for purposes of navigation, and 
 in the year 1543, he made a successful experiment with .it in the harbor of Barcelona, before Charles 
 V. and all his court, and in presence of the whole city. The vessel with which he tried his experi¬ 
 ment was of 200 barrels [tons?] burden. See Naverette—‘‘Colleccion de Viages,” and “ A year io 
 Spain,-’ vol. i, p. 47. 
 
 0 2 
 
 11 
 
 113 
 
114 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 
 
 died in tliis Essay. Before Protestantism was ever heard of, she had 
 struggled single-handed for centuries against ignorance and barbarism. 
 She had already achieved a splendid triumph over these evils, some time 
 before the dawn of the reformation. The brilliant literary age of Leo X., 
 which was at its meridian of glory when Luther began his revolt, has never 
 been surpassed, — if even rivaled,—by Protestants at any subsequent 
 . epoch. 
 
 Were this the place for such an investigation, facts might be accumu¬ 
 lated to show, that the reformation, instead of advancing, retarded the 
 progress of learning for a whole century. Amidst the confusion, angry 
 polemics, and bloody civil wars, to which that revolution gave rise, men 
 had neither time nor inclination to apply to the cultivation of letters. Great 
 minds which, during “ Leo’s golden days,” had directed all their energies 
 to literary pursuits, were then destined to consume their strength in acri¬ 
 monious religious controversy. Instead of drinking at the pure fountains 
 of Helicon, they were doomed to slake their thirst at the troubled waters 
 of controversial debate. The history of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen¬ 
 turies, remarkably sterile in literary improvement and invention, compared 
 with the two previous ones, affords a striking demonstration of this 
 position. 
 
 In more modern times, in our own age and country, the course pursued 
 i^by Protestant writers towards the Catholic Church, on the subject of 
 education, has been singularly unjust and inconsistent. Sometimes they 
 •accuse her of fostering ignorance, and at others, of monopolizing education. 
 These two charges are also not unfrequently made in the same breath, 
 and in reference to the same time and place ! In proof of this assertion, we 
 confidently appeal to the line of argument adopted by the Protestant reli¬ 
 gious press in the United States, during the last quarter of a century. 
 Whatever rule of conduct she pursues, the Catholic Church cannot please 
 these fastidious gentry of the Protestant press and pulpit. Does she rear 
 Schools and Colleges all over the land, going even beyond her means to 
 bring education to the door of the humblest citizen ? The cry is at once 
 raised, that she wishes to monoplize education, and to use the infiuence 
 thus obtained in order to make proselytes to her creed. Does she make 
 no extraordinary efforts in behalf of learning ? The old stereotype charge 
 lis rung in our ears, that she means to foster ignorance. Placed in a. 
 dilemma, analogous to that of her divine Founder and Spouse, while He 
 'was laboring for the redemption of mankind in the land of Israel, she may 
 •apply His language, in addressing the people of this age of boasted enlight¬ 
 enment; “ But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be alike ? It is 
 like children sitting in the market place, who cry out to their companions 
 and say, ‘We have piped to you, and you have not danced; we have 
 lamented, and you have not mourned. ’ ” ‘ 
 
 The charge preferred against the Church,—of en(;ouraging ignorance,— 
 is as old as Christianity. The Christians of the first three centuries were 
 
 1 St. Math, xi, 16. seq. 
 
IN THE “dark” ages. 
 
 115 
 
 sneered at for their poverty and their want of learning. This calumnious 
 accusation is repeated over and over again, with singular gusto, by that 
 heartless and sneering infidel, Gibbon; whose grandiloquent style and well 
 rounded periods have contributed, perhaps more than the writings of any 
 other enemy of Christianity, to poison the minds of youth, and to foster 
 real ignorance, under the pretext of promoting philosophy. The greediness 
 with which this and similar works are sought for and devoured in Pro¬ 
 testant communities, is one out of many proofs, that all errori.^s sympathize 
 with one another. Such works meet with very little sympathy in Catholic 
 countries. In fact, the best refutation of the insidious history of “the 
 Decline and Downfall of the Roman Empire,” is the production of an 
 Italian -Catliolic.' 
 
 In the fourth century, that arch enemy of Christianity, Julian the apos¬ 
 tate, by legal enactments against the education of Christians in the Colleges 
 and Schools of the Roman empire, sought to perpetuate this stigma of 
 ignorance. The imperial persecutor had the heartlessness to sneer at the 
 ignorance of Christians, and to prohibit their education in the same breath P 
 
 It is a singular coincidence in the history of mankind, that England, after 
 ihe reformation, adopted precisely the same iniquitous course towards 
 Catholic Ireland. By her statutes, it was penal for a Catholic to teach 
 school in Ireland; and yet, as if exulting with fiendish delight at the mis¬ 
 chief which this iniquitous law was calculated to produce, you might hear 
 her loud and long protracted notes of triumph over the ignorance and 
 4 debasement of the Irish;—a triumph not justified, however, by the facts, 
 notwithstanding every English Protestant effort to foster ignorance ! 
 
 The usual device of Protestant writers is, to accuse the Catholic Church 
 of promoting ignorance, especially during the middle ages, in order that, 
 availing herself of the general darkness of that period, she might the more 
 easily establish her erroneous principles. This theory has been so often and 
 so boldly stated, that it has almost passed current as truth in our enlight¬ 
 ened age. Does the Catholic ask the Protestant to inform him, when even 
 one of the Catholic doctrines, against which he protests, had its origin at 
 any period subsequent to the Apostolic age? Perhaps some other response 
 may at first be hazarded : but when driven from every other position,* the 
 answer will probably be, that the doctrine in question originated in the 
 Dark Ages! And when asked further, when and where it was first broached 
 during that period, the respondent shrouds himself triumphantly in the 
 darkness of these ages, as in a panoply of strength, and thinks himself 
 clad in a mail of proof! We have more than once been amused at such 
 exhibitions of polemical skill. 
 
 And yet this argument, or rather subterfuge, has not even the merit of 
 
 1 Spedalieri—“ Kifutazione di Gibbon,” 5 Vols. I’imo. An abridgment, at least, of thia work 
 should be given to the English community. 
 
 2 And yet Gibbon, Tytler, and other historians much in favor among Protestants, are in the habit 
 of eulogizing this apostate, as the greatest philosopher and legislator of his age; while they have little 
 but reproach and sneers to bestow on such men as Constantine and Theodosius. Another proof thic 
 uf the tender kindred feeling existing amongst errorists of different shades of opinion. 
 
116 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 
 
 speciousness or plausibility. To borrow an expresshe figure fiom the 
 schoolmen of the Dark Ages, it is lame of both feet — utroque claudicai 
 pede: the premises are not true, and if they were, the conclusion would not 
 follow. In other words, it is not true, that the epoch in question was sc 
 dark as it is often represented; and even if it had been tenfold more so, it 
 would not thence follow that Christianity could then have been more easily 
 corrupted, than at any other more enlightened period. 
 
 To begin with this last position; did Christ any where say, that literature 
 was intended to be a distinctive mark of His Church? Or that His promises 
 to the Church were to depend for their fulfillment on the literary qualifica¬ 
 tions of His followers? Was the promotion of human learning a principal 
 object of His divine mission? Had it been so, would He not have selected, 
 as the heralds of His kingdom, men of talents and gifted with human learn¬ 
 ing, rather than poor illiterate fishermen ? Would He not have sought out 
 and commissioned, to found His religion, the philosophers and rhetoricians 
 of Greece and Rome, in preference to twelve unlearned men selected for 
 this purpose from- the lowest walks of life in Judea? The truth is, that “ He 
 chose the foolish things of the world, that He might confound the wise, and 
 the weak things of the world, that He might confound the strong: and the 
 mean things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, and things 
 that are not, that He might destroy the things that are ; that no flesh should 
 glory in His sight.”’ It was a leading maxim of His kingdom, that 
 ^‘knowledge puffeth up; but charity edifieth.”^ He promised, that the 
 “ gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church,” built upon a rock f 
 without even once intimating that the fulfillment of this solemn pledge was 
 to depend on the encouragement of human learning by His Church. 
 
 The other foot of the argument is equally lame. The Church has, in 
 fact, always promoted learning, even in the most calamitous periods of her 
 history. Men of every shade of opinion are beginning to pay this homage 
 to truth. In Germany, in France, in Italy, and in England, writers of dis¬ 
 tinguished ability, without distinction of creed, have applied themselves 
 with singular industry and success to exploring the hitherto neglected 
 treasures of mediaeval literature.'’ And the man who, with the result.of 
 all these literary labors spread out before the world, will still persist in 
 calling the middle ages dark, only exhibits the darkness of his own mind 
 
 1 1. Corinth. I. 27, seq. 2 1. Corinth, viii, 1. 3 Math. xvi. 18. 
 
 4 The principal writers on this subject are in Italy, Muratori Dissertationes de Antiquitatibua 
 Medii JEvi 6 vol.s. folio — Tiraboschi — Storia Della Letteratura Ilaliana, 28 vols 32 mo. — liettinelli, 
 Risorgimento, della Letteratura Italiana, 2 vols. 8 vo. — Andres, Storia di ogni I^etteratura, 6 vols. 4 
 to. — Hattini—Apologia dei Secoli Barbai 3 vols. 12 mo, — besides many others. In Germany, 
 
 Heeren — Ge.schichte des studiuins der classischeu Litteratur im Mittelalrer ; Voigt_Geschichte 
 
 Preu.s.sens, etc. etc. In England, Hallani, Maitland, and others. In France, Guizot, and. not to 
 mention a host of others, a learned writer, who, over the signature “Achery,” has lately written a 
 8erie.s of very le.arned and able articles on this subject, published in the .\nnales de la Philosophic Chre- 
 tienne, upon the treasures contained in which we shall draw copiously in this Essay. We shall also 
 occasionally avail ourselves of Digby’s great work, “ The .4ges of Faith,in which the reader will find 
 every thing on this, and almost every other subject, — “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, 
 and stubble.” put together with at least as much learning as order. This work is, in truth, an 
 abyss of learning — abyssus multa. 
 
IN THE ‘"dark” ages. 
 
 117 
 
 on the subject, and resembles one who, blindfolded at mid-day, should 
 persevere in declaring against all evidence that it was as dark as 
 midnmht! 
 
 O 
 
 We have elsewhere spoken in some detail of the services rendered to 
 learning by the Catholic clergy, as well as of the condition of literature 
 and the arts in the middle ages. What we purpose to do, at present, is, to 
 furnish a summary sketch of the Schools and Universities founded by the 
 Church during that period. 
 
 From the earliest ages. Schools and Colleges grew up under the fostering 
 care of the Church. The most celebrated were those of Rome, Alexan¬ 
 dria, Milan, Carthage, and Nisibis, Who has not read of the brilliant 
 Christian Schools of Alexandria in the third century, where Christian 
 youths, even amidst the darkening storm of persecution, were seen eagerly 
 thronging the academic halls, to drink in the teaching which fell from the 
 eloquent lips of the great Origen ? Their ardor for learning could not be 
 quenched, even by the blood of the almost numberless victims, who fell 
 under the sword of a Decius and a Valerian. Who has not heard of the 
 glory shed upon the Schools of Carthage and Rome by the great St. 
 Augustine, in the beginning of the fifth century? Though Africa was 
 his country, yet this illustrious man preferred the Schools of Rome, and he 
 determined to reflect on this city the luster of his splendid talents. “ The 
 chief cause of my going to Rome,” says he, “was my hearing that young 
 men studied there more quietly, and that they were kept in order by a 
 better discipline.” '■ 
 
 In these earliest models of Christian Schools, sacred was justly preferred 
 to profane learning; because the objects of the former were so much higher 
 and nobler. Yet the latter was also cultivated, but was made to shine with 
 light borrowed chiefly from the former. Great men then thought, tliat 
 human learning had attained its highest standard of excellence, when its 
 teachings were most conformable to the heavenly wisdom; when it reflected 
 most the light of divine Truth—of God. But to meet, on his own ground, 
 the votary of mere human learning, the Christian scholar was compelled 
 occasionally to descend from his lofty eminence, into the arena of the 
 Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies. The result of this condescension 
 was, however, rather to elevate pagan philosophy, than to lower the loftier 
 standard of Christian wisdom. At that period, Plato had the ascendant 
 over the Stagyrite, particularly in the School of Alexandria; the latter, 
 however, almost (Entirely eclipsed his more brilliant rival during many 
 subsequent centuries. The famous Medicean School of Florence, in the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, restored Plato to his pre-eminence; and 
 F. Schlegel greatly prefers him to Aristotle.^ The Christian Schools 
 borrowed from both what seemed best to suit their purposes; and though 
 exclusiv^e partiality for Plato betrayed Origen and other professors into 
 some errors and extravagances, yet the influence of the ancient philosophy, 
 Uiiis moulded to the Christian standard, was generally highly beneficial 
 
 1 Coufessioiis, B. v. 2 lu his Lectures ou the I’hilogophy of History.” 
 
 h 
 
118 
 
 SCHOOLS AND U N I V E 11 S I T I R S 
 
 The Church allowed a reasonable latitude to her children, interposing lier 
 authority, only when the precious deposit of faith was endangered. 
 
 For three centuries after her conversion to Christianity, Ireland took the 
 lead of all Europe in the cultivation and pronaotion of literature. From 
 the middle of the fifth, to the middle of the eighth century, she carried on 
 what might be called a crusade of learning throughout all Europe. While 
 the tide of barbarian invasion was rushing over the continent, burying 
 under its turbid waves the relics of ancient literature ,and civilization, the 
 Emerald Isle was devoting the repose, which Providence then granted her, 
 to the practice of religion, the founding of Schools, and the cultivation of' 
 letters, both sacred and profane. The first of the northern nations to enter 
 into the fold of Christ, she was destined to become one chief instrument 
 in the hands of God, for the conversion and civilization of the others. A 
 brilliant light then shot up from Ireland, which illuminated the whole 
 western world. To give one instance of the flourishing condition of her 
 institutions of learning during the period in question, it is well known, that 
 the monastery of Benchor, or Bangor, contained no less than three 
 thousand monks, besides scholars almost innumerable. Fired with en¬ 
 thusiasm, Irishmen visited almost every country in Europe, leaving behind 
 them splendid institutions of learning and religion,—for these two always 
 went hand in hand. Irishmen established the monastery and School of 
 Lindisfarne in England, of Bobbio in Italy, of Yerdun in France, and of 
 Wartzburg, Ratisbon, Erfurth, Cologne, and Vienna in Germany; — to 
 say nothing of their literary labors in Paris, throughout England, and 
 elsewhere.^ 
 
 In England, the episcopal sees became special nurseries of learning.^ 
 The same may be said of these sees in general, throughout the Catholic 
 world. Wherever a cathedral church was erected, there also a School, 
 with a library attached to it, grew up under its shadow. This was not a 
 mere chance : it was the natural tendency and result of the Catholic 
 religion. Catholicity and literature always flourished together. It was 
 also a matter of canonical enactment. Ecclesiastical councils,—provincial, 
 national, and general,—made this the settled law of the Church during 
 the middle ages. It would be tedious to allege all the decrees of councils 
 bearing on this subject, which is referred to by nearly a hundred of them, 
 held,at different places, and at different times. We will only adduce a 
 few of the more remarkable. 
 
 A council held at Rome, in 826 , under the Pontiff Eugenius II., 
 ordained that Schools should be established throughout the world at 
 cathedral and parochial churches, and in such other places as miglit be 
 suitable for their erection. Towards the close of the eighth century, a 
 council convened at Metz enjoined the obligation ot erecting Catholic 
 Schools, to be conducted by the clergy living in common with the bishop. 
 
 1 For lull particulars on this interesting subject, see Moore's “ Ilistor}’ of Ireland,” vol. i. See, 
 
 also, Annales de la Philos. Chret. Art. 7, sup cit. ^ 
 
 2 lleeren, 0pp. i. 65, who cites Henry’s History of England. 
 
IN THE “dark” ages. 
 
 119 
 
 Tlie council of Mayence, in 813, ordered the clergy to admonish parents 
 under their charge, that they should send their children to the Schools^ 
 established, “either in the monasteries, or in the houses of the parochial 
 clergy.” ' We gather from this and many similar enactments, that Scliools 
 were established not only at the cathedral, but also the parochial churches," 
 as well as in the monasteries. The synod of Orleans, in 800, enacted,‘ 
 that the parochial clergy should erect Schools in towns and villages, in. 
 order to teach little children the elements of learning: “Let them re¬ 
 ceive,” this council adds, “and teach these little children with the utmost 
 charity, that they theniselves may shine as the stars forever. Let them 
 receive no . remuneration from their Schools, unless what the parents, 
 through charity, may voluntarily offer.” ^ As early as 529, the coumnl 
 of Vaison had strongly recommended the erection of similar Schools. A 
 cotemporary writer of the life of Bishop Meinwercus, represents the 
 School of Paderborn, as “ flourishing in both divine and human 
 learning.” ^ )■ 
 
 The princes of the earth assisted the authorities of the Church, in 
 carrying out these benevolent intentions. Charlemagne, in one of his 
 Capitulars, ordered the erection of Schools at every cathedral church 
 throuofhout his vast dominions, which extended over more than half of 
 Europe. His successor, Lothaire I., in 823, promulgated a law, that 
 public Schools should be established in eight of the principal Italian cities, 
 “ in order that an opportunity might be given to all, and that there might 
 be no excuse drawn from poverty, and the difficulty of repairing to remote 
 places.” Half a century later, Alfred the Great enacted similar laws in 
 England. Thus, during the Catholic times, the Church and the State— 
 bishops and kings—vied with each other in zeal for the erection of Schools. 
 They all felt that this was the best, if not the only remedy for European 
 society, then torn by civil wars, or just emerging from the confusion 
 caused by barbarian invasion. And if their good intentions were not 
 always carried into effect, the impartial judge will admit that it was surely 
 not their fault, but that of the evil times on which they had fallen. But for 
 these noble exertions to restore learning, what would have saved Europe 
 from hopeless barbarism ? Even with all those efforts, the struggle 
 between Christian civilization and northern barbarism, was long and 
 doubtful. What would have been the result had not the Church interposed 
 her powerful influence to stay the torrent ? 
 
 We have seen the action of provincial and national councils favoring the 
 erection of Schools : we will now show that general councils, representing 
 the whole Church, made similar enactments. A canon of the third gen¬ 
 eral council of Constantinople, in 680, commands priests to open Schools in 
 country places, and to receive gratuitously all children who could be in¬ 
 duced to frequent them. The third general council of Lateran was con¬ 
 vened in 1179 by Alexander III., one of the greatest Pontiffs of the 
 
 1 Concil. Moguntinuiii, Can. x 2 Concil Aurelian .\n. 800, Can. xx. 
 
 8 Digby’8 Ages of Faiih, vol. ii, pp 412-3,— Auierican e<l.,—where many tiuular facts are related’ 
 
120 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES. 
 
 middle ages. It passed tlie following canon: “Since the church of God, 
 like a tender mother, is bound to provide for the poor, both in those 
 things which appertain to the aid of the body, and in those which belong 
 to the advancement of the soul; lest the opportunity for such improvement 
 {^agendi et lyroficiendi) should be wanting to those poor persons who cannot 
 be aided by the wealth of their parents; let a competent benefice be 
 assigned in each cathedral church to a teacher, whose duty it shall be to 
 teach the clerks and poor scholars of the same church gratuitously ; by 
 which means the necessity of the teacher may be relieved, and the way 
 to instruction may be opened to learners. Let this practice be also res¬ 
 tored in other churches and monasteries, if, in times past, any thing was 
 set apart in them for this purpose. But let no one exact a price for grant¬ 
 ing permission to teach.” ^ Another great Pope of the middle ages. In¬ 
 nocent III.. renewed this decree in 1215, and extended the law to parochial 
 churches. Honorious III., and other Pontiffs, followed his example. 
 
 Thus, FREE SCHOOLS Were established throughout Christendom by the 
 authority of the Roman Pontiffs, and by that of general councils. The 
 Church promoted learning through her visible head, and both in her dis¬ 
 tributive and collective capacity. And be it ever remembered, that all 
 the Schools above mentioned were established chiefly for the benefit of 
 the common people and of the poor. In France alone, during those ages, 
 there were more than two hundred such Schools and Colleges.^ 
 
 The monasteries were powerful auxiliaries in the cause of education. 
 Wherever they were established, the most barren waste was made to smile 
 with verdure. Their retired situation, remote from the confusion and cor¬ 
 ruption of cities, adapted them in a peculiar manner to the purposes of 
 education. The Christian youth could there drink to satiety of the pure 
 waters of sacred and profane learning, far away from the turmoil of the 
 world. His health was invigorated by the mountain or country air ; his 
 morals were preserved , by the example and watchfulness of the monks; 
 and both literature and religion became lovely in his eyes. In those troubled 
 times of civil feud and bloodshed, the monasteries, were asylums for learn¬ 
 ing,—green spots on the surface of creation,— ^ which the foot of the spoiler 
 seldom profaned. Who, that has read the history of the middle ages, has 
 not felt refreshed in mind, as he revisited in spirit the monasteries of Cluny 
 and Clairvaux ; of Corbie and Bee ; of Fulda and Bobbio,—not to men¬ 
 tion a hundred other bright and favored spots ! The shadows of iSt. Ber¬ 
 nard, of Peter the Venerable, and of the abbot Hugo, seem still to liover 
 over those holy sanctuaries, and to hallow them by their presence. 
 
 d'here were Schools in all the principal monasteries. Some of these were 
 for primary, and others for higher instruction. In the formej-, boys were 
 taught the “ Our Father ” the Creed, the Psalms, Plain Chant, Aritlimetio 
 
 1 See Cabassutius-Notitia Concil. in locum. Digby (Vol. 2, p. 114)givos an impcrfecr synopsig 
 ■of the dot'ree, which however is marked a translation of tlie canon. Resides, the uiargiuui refer 
 •ence is inc. rrect, and without meaning. 
 
 2 For proof this, see Anuales de la Philos. Chretienne, -\rt.,7, sup. cit. 
 
IN THE 
 
 121 
 
 ‘‘Dark” ages. 
 
 and Grammar. In the lali'er, the moi-e elevated branches of learning were 
 inculcated; — Music, Madiematics, Poetiy, and the Greek, Hebrew, and 
 Arabic languages. At that period Grammar had a much more ex¬ 
 tended meaning than it has at present. It embraced, though perhaps 
 in less perfection, what was afterwards denoted by the term Humani¬ 
 ties, — a full course of instruction in the Latin language, which was, during 
 the greater part of the middle ages, that of the people, — at least of all 
 the educated, — as well as of the Church and of the State. The laws and 
 ordinances of France were published in Latin until the sixteenth century. 
 Till the beginning of the thirteenth century, most of the famous monaste¬ 
 ries in Europe were of the Benedictine order, whose services to literature 
 cannot be over estimated. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the 
 monastic orders of St. Dominic and St. Francis covered Europe with Schools, 
 which were chiefly for the benefit of the poor. And there is no doubt that 
 these last named orders greatly promoted the rise of letters, and thereby 
 the advancement of civilization. Speaking of the cathedral and monastic 
 Schools of the middle ages, Hallam bestows upon them the following very 
 faint and qualified praise : 
 
 “ The praise of having originally established Schools belongs to some 
 bishops and abbots of the sixth century. They came in place of the im¬ 
 perial Schools overthrown by the barbarians. In the downfall of that tem¬ 
 poral dominion, a spiritual aristocracy was providentially raised up, to save 
 from extinction the remains of learning and of religion itself. Some of 
 these Schools seem to have been preserved in the south of Italy, though 
 merely, perhaps, for elementary instruction. . . The cathedral and con¬ 
 ventual Schools, created or restored by Charlemagne, became the mealis of 
 preserving that small portion of learning which continued to exist. They 
 flourished most, having had time to produce their fruits, under his suc¬ 
 cessors, Louis the Debonair, Lothaire, and Charles the Bald.”* 
 
 Besides Schools for the people, there were others, chiefly in the monas¬ 
 teries, for the special education of the children of the nobility and of kings. 
 Meibom, a Protestant historian, assures us of this fact. “ Durinc: the aofe 
 of the Charles’, of the Othos’, and of the Henrys’, the children of kings and 
 dukes were placed at a tender age in the Schools of the canons and of the 
 monks, . . that they might acquire a knowledge of the liberal arts, and of 
 the languages.”*^ Tlie chronicler of St. Requier, who lived under the Car- 
 lovingian dynasty, tells us that in that abbey were educated one hundred 
 youths, from the principal noble families of the empire. Charles Martel 
 founded the College of Richenon for a similar purpose. 
 
 The kings and princes of the middle ages were not then so ignorant as 
 they are usually represented. Charlemagne and Alfred were both not only 
 scholars, but magnificent patrons of learning. They were the Medici of 
 the middle ages. The fact that many of the ancient diplomas and other 
 public documents are signed with the cipher, instead of the name of a prince, 
 
 1 Introduction to laterature, etc. — 1, 27. 
 
 2 See Ziegelbauer Opp Tom. 1 “Sub aevo Carolorum, Othonum, et Ilenricorum, regum ducum- 
 que liberi tenelii adhuc in caiionicorum aut monachorum collegia amandabantur . . ut liberalium 
 artium et linguanim coguitioui a.^suetierent.'’ 
 
 P 
 
122 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVEllSITIES 
 
 is no conclnsive evidence that the signer could not write his own name. This 
 practice was often a matter of court etiquette, originating in the idea, more 
 or less common at that time, that a prince should write with no othei 
 instrument than his sword,' Those warlike nobles, clad in steel, did not 
 much relish the old advice, — cedant arma togce} When king Lewis 
 d'outre mer laughed at Foulk of Anjou, for having sung in the choir 
 with the other canons, Foulk answered bluntly: “ An illiterate king is a 
 crowned ass. The same was said to Henry I. of England by his father, 
 the bluff William the Conqueror. This fact proves that ignorance was 
 deemed disgraceful in a prince of the middle ages. In the tenth century, 
 St. Stephen of Hungary had his people taught the Latin language, which 
 is still, to some extent, the vernacular tongue of that country. 
 
 The following fact may serve to show that ladies of rank also cultivated 
 learning during the period in question. In the eleventh century, Ingulph, 
 who was reared in the court of Edward the Confessor in England, informs 
 us, that on returning every day from school, the queen Egitha used to 
 examine him in grammar and logic, and to encourage his progress by 
 frequent presents. The nunneries did for the girls, what the cathedral, 
 parochial, and monastic Schools did for boys ; and every class, and both 
 sexes were thus provided with ample means of education.'* The Latin lan¬ 
 guage was understood by many of the religious ladies of the convents: their 
 rules were mostly in that language ; and many small works written in Latin 
 by nuns of those ages are still extant.® They also occasionally cultivated 
 the study of the Greek language, and of philosophy. Some nuns of Eng¬ 
 land with their abbess Liobe, a near relative of St. Boniface, the apostle of 
 Germany, carried their learning into the latter country, and established 
 Schools there for the education of their own sex.® In the tenth century, 
 Hroswetha, a nun of Gandersheim, wyote Latin poems, still extant, on the 
 foundation of her convent, and on the life of the emperor Otho the Great; 
 besides six dramas on ecclesiastical history. Though far from being so 
 classical as the ancient models, yet these poems are of respectable merit; 
 and they prove, that.in the institutions for learning at that day, —even in 
 the tenth century, — classical literature was extensively and successfully 
 cultivated, by women as well as by men. 
 
 Not only religious women, but ladies of the world also were not unfre- 
 quently well educated. They received their education in the convents. 
 St. Bernard, in the twelfth century, wrote letters in Latin to the wives of 
 counts and barons. The convent of Roncerai at Anthers was distino-uished 
 by the number of young princesses who were there educated. It was in 
 this school that Heloise learned Latin and philosophy. St. Gertrude, of 
 Saxony, (fourteenth century,) extended her studies to the classics, to which 
 
 1 See NouTeau Trnite de diplomatique, p. 361, — a learned work by tlie Benedictines. 
 
 2 Let arms yield to the gown — tear to pence. 
 
 3 Hex illiteratus est asinus coronatus, — Martene, Collect. Ampliss. v. 987. 
 
 4 The Annales de la Pliilosophie Chret. has a special article, (vi.) replete with interesting details, on 
 
 the learned females of the middle ages. 5 See Ilistoire Litter, de France, Tom. ix. p. 129, seqq 
 
 6 MabilloD. Prof, in Saecul. iii, Benedict. 
 
IN THE D ark” a GES .• 
 
 123 
 
 she was so strongly attached, as to feel scraples of conscience on the 
 subject. She has left some pious historical works.* The abbess Herrada 
 of Alsace, (twelfth century) wrote an extensive Encyclopedia,^ which is 
 still preserved in manuscript. Many other facts of a similar character 
 might be alleged, to illustrate female education in the middle ages; but 
 these will suffice 
 
 Pass we now to the Universities of the “Dark” Ages, many of whicli 
 were fully organized in the twelfth century, and became so numerous and 
 flourishing in that and the following ages, as to excite our admiration and 
 astonishment, even at this day of boasted enlightenment. The Schools 
 and Colleges erected in the larger cities gradually swelled into Universi¬ 
 ties, which received special charters of privileges from Popes and princes. 
 These soon became foci of learning, which radiated the light of literature 
 throughout every country of Europe. Their great number, and the vast 
 multitude of young men from every part of Europe who flocked to them, 
 prove most conclusively how great was then the thirst for learning. Here 
 again Italy pioneered the way. The Universities of Rome and Bologna 
 soon became famous. Padua, Naples, Pavia, and Perugia, also had their 
 Universities. After the discovery of the Pandects of Justinian by the 
 Amalfites, in the eleventh century, the study of the civil law was revived 
 in Italy. The University of Bologna became, under Irnerius, or Werner, 
 the great Law School of Christendom. Thousands of students from the 
 remotest parts of Europe crowded its halls. Besides Italian youths, there 
 were occasionally at this University no less than ten thousand foreign 
 students. Padua, the Alma Mater of Christopher Columbus and of 
 Amerigo Vespucci, had at one time no less than eighteen thousand stu¬ 
 dents.^ The other Italian Universities were also in a highly flourishing 
 condition. 
 
 The other countries of Europe boasted also their Universities, which 
 rivaled those of Italy. England had her Oxford and her Cambridge. 
 The Schools, founded in tliese two cities in the ninth and tenth centuries, 
 grew to be Universities towards the close of the twelfth. Tlie reign of 
 Henry II. was the Augustan Age of English mediaeval literature. An¬ 
 thony Wood, the Protestant historian of the Oxford University, informs 
 us that, during Henry’s reign, it counted thirty thousand students ! 
 
 Spain was not behind the other Catholic states of Europe. She im¬ 
 proved on the scientific discoveries of the Arabs, who, during their long 
 rule over her most beautiful provinces, had established many flourishing 
 Schools, and made many discoveries in medicine and mathematics. To 
 them all Europe was much indebted for the impulse, wliicli their exam¬ 
 ple and successful industry gave to these studies. The literary boon 
 which they bestowed on Europe was not, however, witliout its poison. 
 They paid at least as much attention to the study of alchemy, of necro- 
 
 1 Insinnationes D. Pietatis 2 Ilortus deliciarum. •< 
 
 3 Set! Eustace's •‘Classical Tour'’ through Italy, in i Vols. 8vo. 
 
 4 Athena; Oxouienses. The I'tiiied School of .\tliens never had so many .scholars. 
 
124 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 
 
 mancy, and of astrology, as to that of the useful sciences. They wasted 
 as much time and labor on the discovery of the philosopher’s stone, 
 as they spent in cultivating the sciences of arithmetic, medicine, and 
 astronomy. To their influence, we have no doubt, Europe was mainly 
 indebted for the importance attached to these foolish studies by many of 
 her Christian literati.^ Besides the celebrated Universities of Salamanca, 
 Valladolid, and Alcala, Spain could boast of twenty-four other Colleges 
 of less celebrity. In addition to the Universities already enumerated, 
 there were various Schools of Medicine in Spain, at Salerno in the south 
 of Italy, and at Montpelier and Paris in France. These also gave a great 
 impulse to the development of European literature and civilization. 
 
 The influence of the Universities of the middle ages was not confined 
 to the mere imparting of learning. They kept up a constant intercourse 
 in society, at a time when the masses had far less communication than at 
 present. They excited the emulation of noble youths, and opened to them 
 a path to eminence and glory, far more lofty than the battle-field, which 
 had been hitherto almost their only incentive to exertion. Tiiey thus 
 exercised a humanizing influence on the manners of an age essentially 
 warlike. There was room, too, for the exercise of a species of chivalry, 
 in the intellectual tilting matches of the Schools, no less than in the more 
 exciting and less refined tournaments, where mailed knights broke their 
 spears against each other, in pursuit of glory. Post-offices arose from the 
 necessity of regular communication, which the Universities, with their 
 vast number of foreign students created. The young men who had 
 studied law at Bologna, Paris, and Oxford, on returning to their homes, 
 excited in the minds of their countrymen an ardor for such studies. 
 Besides, with their increased knowledge, they contributed greatly to 
 improve the jurisprudence of their respective countries. 
 
 Thus civilization received a powerful stimulus from the Universities. 
 The streamlets, which issued from these fountain-heads of literature, 
 irrigated and fertilized all Europe. They were sources, 
 
 Whence many rivulets have since been turned, 
 
 O’er the garden Catholic to lead 
 
 Their living waters, and have fed its plants.^ 
 
 In a learned Catholic Magazine, published monthly in Paris, we find an 
 interesting Review of a work on the University of Paris, lately published 
 by J. Danielo.^ This distinguished author has written other excellent 
 woiks manifesting deep research into the history of the middle ages. Not 
 the least interesting of these publications, is his “ History of Queen 
 
 1 I cannot subscribe to the opinion of Andres, (Storia di o;?ni Lett. vol. i ,) who enters into an 
 elaborate course of reasoning, to prove that Europe owed to the Arabs almost all her valuable dis¬ 
 coveries in the middle ages. He was a Spaniard, and perhaps his partiality for his country inclined 
 iiim to attach too much importance to Ilispano-Arabic influence on the rise of Letters. 
 
 2 Dante, rarad. xii. 
 
 8 Tne work is entitled : “ Etudes Literaires, Philosophiques, et Morales sur 1’ Universite de Paris, 
 et sur les progres de I'esprit humaiii au moyen age:” or, Literary, Philosophical, and Moral 
 researches on the University of Paris, and on the progress of the human mind in the middle ages.” 
 The Review alluded to, is found in the No. of the ‘‘Universite (Jatholique,” for Eebruary, 18d2. 
 
IN THE 
 
 125 
 
 “dark”ages. 
 
 Blanche,” the sainted motlier of St. Louis IX. From the Review just 
 mentioned, we select the following details connected with our present 
 subject; 
 
 “We can form no idea at the present day,” says M. Danielo, “of the 
 importance and of the numbers of the University of France towards the 
 close of the twelfth century. Rendered illustrious by Peter Lombard, St. 
 Anselm, William de Champeaux, and Abeillard, it had already become 
 the light and the rendezvous of the learned, and the resort of students from 
 all Europe. The Holy See loved and protected it, as a cherished daughter, 
 as its faithful shield and champion. It was the glory of the western 
 world and of France, and no institution in all Christendom was its equal. 
 Athens and Alexandria, according to the testimony of cotemporary writers, 
 never had Schools so numerous, or so brilliant. In fact, the number of 
 University students often exceeded twenty-five thousand ! ... The 
 
 kings of France were as zealous to foster its growth, as were those of 
 neighboring states to diminish its patronage. These employed every kind 
 of intrigue to dissolve this great and illustrious body, and to cause the 
 remnant of its students to pursue their education within their own ter¬ 
 ritory. For this purpose they instituted Universities at great expense ; 
 they endowed them with lands and privileges ; they offered all kinds of 
 inducements to students. But their efforts proved abortive. In spite of 
 the prohibition of the emperor Frederick, students continued to flock to the 
 University of Paris from Germany, as well as from England and Italy. 
 ’VVe should remark that this University, besides the advantages of its 
 location, was very accessible and very hospitable. The students soon 
 became acclimated in Paris ; and after having completed their studies, it 
 was easy for the most talented to obtain professorships, and we accordingly 
 find more than one professor from Germany, Italy, and especially England, 
 filling with distinction the various chairs. Add to this, that, nearly all 
 the celebrated men, and many of the Popes, bishops and abbots, of that 
 period, were eleves and admirers of the University of Paris ; many of them 
 too had been among its professors, and respectfully called it their mother.” 
 
 We have no doubt that the above account is substantially correct, 
 though we are disposed to think, that the ardent partiality of the French-'^ 
 man has in one or two instances betrayed him into no little exaggeration. 
 Though the French University was highly distinguished, yet it had many 
 rivals, which equaled, if they did not surpass ’it, both in the number of 
 their students, and in the learning and fame of their professors. Not to 
 speak of others, those of Bologna in Italy, and of Oxford in England, 
 could boast at least equal antiquity and celebrity. The former had the 
 merit of reviving the study of the civil law under the great Werner ; and 
 as a Law School, both for the civil and the canon law, it long continued 
 unrivaled. The latter under Henry II. of England, whose reign com¬ 
 menced about the middle of the twelfth century (1154,) reckoned thirty 
 thousand youths among its students,—a number which that of Paris 
 never perhaps surpassed. The statement, that “ nearly all the celebrated 
 men” of that epoch were students of the Paris University, must also we 
 have no doubt, be received with many grains of allowance. “The glory 
 of the western world and of France,” had laurels enough already, without 
 snatching at those which decorated the brows of her fair sisters in Italy, 
 
 Spain, an 1 England, 
 
 P2 
 
126 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 
 
 With twenty-five or thirty thousand young men from all nations within 
 its wallsj it was natural to expect that Paris during the middle ages should 
 become occasionally the theater of riot, growing out of contentions between 
 the students and the citizens. If we are to credit cotemporaiy history, the 
 former often equaled the latter in number. M. Danielo gives us, from 
 Roger de Hoveden, an English historian of the time, a graphic account of 
 one of those outbreaks, which resulted in the famous charter of rights 
 granted to the University by Philip Augustus, in 1200. It seems, that 
 the German students of that day liked their social glass, almost as much as 
 their successors in the German Universities do at the present time. One 
 of them, the son of a nobleman, sent his servant to a tavern to purchase 
 wine. The servant, it appears, misbehaved, and was chastised by the 
 tavern-keeper; and in the encounter, the flask of wine was broken. The 
 German students felt aggrieved both in their honor and in their stomachs. 
 They assembled in great numbers, repaired to the tavern, forced its doors, 
 and severely chastised the landlord, leaving him half dead. The citizens 
 of Paris, indignant at this severe retaliation of the students, assembled, and 
 led on by Thomas, the provost of the city, an armed mob assaulted the 
 hotel of the German students. In the conflict which ensued, the young 
 German nobleman and several of his comrades, were killed.‘ The heads 
 of the University repaired in a body to Philip Augustus, king of 
 France, and complained loudly of this violence. The king at their in¬ 
 stance took signal vengeance on the provost and his accomplices ; and to 
 protect the students, as well as to prevent similar outrages in future, he 
 granted to the University an ample charter of privileges, which, among 
 other things, exempted it from the jurisdiction of the provost and of the 
 civil courts, and made it amenable only to the ecclesiastical tribunals. Un¬ 
 der this charter, the University continued to flourish for several centuries. 
 But half a century later, its prosperity received a temporary check from 
 Queen Blanche and St. Louis IX. The Pope, however, soon interfered, 
 and, by his influence with the French court, succeeded in having all the 
 privileges of the University restored. 
 
 The reason of the withdrawal of the charter by the sainted king and 
 queen mother of France, was probably a zeal for the Catholic faith, which 
 one or two of the professors made an eftbrt about that time to undermine. 
 The French University, though generally “the faithful shield and cham¬ 
 pion” of the Church, was occasionally tarnished with heresy ; which did 
 not, however, affect its entire body, but was confined to a few of its pro¬ 
 fessorial chairs. The pride of learning and the habit—encouraged by the 
 Aristotelian philosophy — of defending both sides of every question for the 
 sake of argument, had already betrayed Gilbert de Poree and Abeillard 
 into many errors and extravagances ; and even the great “ master of the 
 sentences,” Peter Lombiird, had not, it was thought, wholly escaped the 
 contagion. But the professors who, in the thirteenth century, were 
 
 1 In all fifteen, says the preamble of the charter, given us in full by M. Danielo 
 
I N T H E 
 
 127 
 
 “dark’’ ages. 
 
 « 
 
 betraved into the o-reatest excesses, were Simon de Tournai and Amaiiry. 
 The blasphemies of the former, and the signal punishment which overtook 
 him in the midst of them, are so remarkable, that we will give the account 
 of them in full, as furnished us by the caustic Benedictine monk, Mathew 
 Paris, a cotemporary English historian. M. Danielo callk him the “best 
 historian of the thirteenth century to which measure of praise we can 
 scarcely subscribe. 
 
 “A certain professor of Paris endowed with great genius and a strong 
 memory, having for two years taught the Arts, that is the Humanities, with 
 great success, directed his attention to theology, in which he made such 
 progress in a short time, that he soon filled with distinction the chair of 
 that faculty. He taught with great ability, and disputed with still greater 
 subtlety. His pleasure consisted in handling difficult questions hitherto 
 unheard of, and in resolving and explaining them with elegance and clear¬ 
 ness. He had as many hearers as the largest palace could contain. One 
 day, having discoursed very subtly of the Trinity, and having brought 
 forward the most profound reasons for this dogma, he was obliged to defer 
 the conclusion of the argument until the following day. All the students 
 of theology in the city were advised of this ; and, being eager to hear the 
 solution of so many apparently inexplicable questions, they crowded to his 
 famous school in mass. The professor, taking his seat, began by stating 
 in order all the questions he had hitherto treated; and those which seemed 
 to every body unfathomable, he explained with so much clearness, elegance, 
 and orthodoxy, that all his hearers w^ere in amazement. 
 
 “ After this wonderful explanation, those of his disciples who were most 
 familiar with him, and most eager for instruction, begged him to repeat his 
 questions and answers, that they might be able to take a copy of them under 
 his dictation ; representing to him, that it would be an indignity, as well as 
 an irreparable loss, to suffer the light of so much science to be extinguished. 
 But he, inflated with pride, raised his eyes to heaven, and- with an insolent 
 laugh, exclaimed : ‘ 0 Jesule! Jesule ! Little Jesus ! Little Jesus ! ! How 
 much have I confirmed and exalted thy law in this dispute ! But with 
 how much stronger reasons could I not abase, weaken, and destroy it, 
 should I wish to be malicious, and take the matter to heart! ’ Having said 
 this, his tongue failed, and he remained without speech. Not only he 
 became mute, but an idiot, and radically stupid. He did not teach or 
 discourse any more ; he became the laughing stock of all who were 
 acquainted with the fact. Two hours afterwards, he was not able to dis¬ 
 tinguish the letters of the alphabet. But the divine vengeance which 
 weighed on him having become a little mitigated, his son, by dint of 
 repetition, succeeded in teaching him the Pater Hoster, and the Credo, 
 which he learned by heart, and repeated stammering : but this was all. 
 This miracle confounded the arrogance, and repressed the boasting, of many 
 among the scholars and professors. This fact,” concludes the historian, 
 “was witnessed by Nicholas Duffy, who was afterwards Bishop of Dublin, 
 a man of great authority, who stated it to me, and requested that 1 should 
 relate it, that it might not be forgotten by posterity.’” 
 
 We will conclude this paper, by briefly adverting to some of the distin¬ 
 guishing characteristics of Schools and Universities in the middle ages. 
 
 1 Matthew Paris, Ilistoria Maj. Angliae, ad an. 1201. See also Bulaeus Hist. Universit Paris. Toui. 
 III. p. 8. Another Historian, Thomas de Cantimpre, likewise a cotemporary, substantially confirms 
 the statement of Matthew Paris. He states that the blasphemy of Simon consisted in comparing 
 Jesus Christ with Moses and Mohammed. (Bulaeus, ibid. p. 9.) 
 
128 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 
 
 These may be reduced to three: 1. their erection was prompted by religion 
 and charity; 2. they were generally free, and all could frequent them 
 without expense ; and, 3. without excluding mere human learning, they yet 
 attached far greater importance to sacred studies. We have recognized 
 many of these features in the facts already alleged; but some additional 
 illustrations may not be wholly useless or devoid of interest. 
 
 1. Nothing is more certain, than that religion presided over the erection 
 of those splendid institutions of learning. No other motive could have 
 caused the raising up of so many brilliant literary establishments. Who¬ 
 ever has studied the history of those ages of faith, must have observed, that 
 religion and divine charity were then the most powerful stimulants to 
 exertion. All other motives were comparatively powerless. To rear 
 institutions, where the poor — the favorite members of Jesus Christ — 
 might imbibe literature hallowed by religion; to cause souls redeemed by 
 the blood of Christ to be trained to virtue and learning; — this was then 
 deemed the noblest use to which money could be applied. The founders 
 of those Schools did not court human applause ; it was glory enough for 
 them, if in the eyes of heaven “ they could shine like stars forever;” or if, 
 in consideration of their pious bequests for education, God would vouchsafe 
 in His mercy to blot out their sins. “We wish,” says St. Benedict, the 
 founder of the illustrious order which bears his name, ‘‘ to institute a School 
 for the service of the Lord, and we hope that we have not placed anything 
 sharp or painful in this institution.* 
 
 Beraudiere, bishop of Perigueaux, founded a seminary for poor scholars 
 in his own city, and stated in dying, that he had left to posterity his book, 
 his church rebuilt, and this seminary for the poor. “ May gracious heaven 
 grant,” he adds, “that posterity may receive great utility; and may God 
 vouchsafe pardon for my past sins ! ”^ 
 
 The child’s advancement in virtue was then the greatest object of the 
 parent’s solicitude. Eginhard writes to his son, who was at the School of 
 Fulda: “ But above all, learn to imitate those good morals in which he 
 (your teacher) excels; for grammar and rhetoric and all other studies of 
 liberal arts are vain, and greatly injurious to the servants of God, unless by 
 the divine grace they know how to be subject to virtue ; for ‘ science pufteth 
 up, but charity edifieth.’ I would rather see you dead than abounding in 
 vice.” St. Anselm of Canterbury, employed similar language, in writing 
 to his nephew Anselm.^ The school rooms of the monasteries at Rome 
 and Bologna, were sanctuaries of piety ; tlie student always beheld in them 
 an image of that immaculate Virgin, who was ever the patroness of Chris¬ 
 tian scholars. In fine, not to multiply tacts, whoever will study the history 
 of those Schools, will not fail to remark that religion always prompted their 
 erection, and presided over their destinies. Every exercise was commenced 
 and terminated by prayer.'* 
 
 1 Praef ad Rt*gulatn—2 Qouget. xvi. 13. apud Digby, Vol. 2, p. 134. 
 
 3 St. Anselmi 0pp. Lib. 4, Epist. 31. 
 
 4 For these beautiful prayers recited before and after the scholastic exercises, see Digby Vol. ii, pp 
 128 and 135. 
 
I N T H E “D A R k” A G E S . l2S 
 
 Instruction in most of those Schools was wholly gratuitous. This 
 was particularly true of the seminaries of Rome, and of almost all the 
 cathedral, parochial, and monastic Schools, erected by order of ecclesi¬ 
 astical councils. This beautiful feature in education during the middle 
 ages was a necessaiy consequence of the spirit of Christian charity, 
 which then prevailed, and wluch, as we have just seen, was the main 
 spring of literary exertion. Teachers in those days wished for no emo- 
 himents, but the smiling approval of God ! Bishops, kings, and em¬ 
 perors left immense legacies for the gratuitous education of the poor. 
 Leopold, Arch-duke of Austria, employed his wealth in founding numer¬ 
 ous seminaries of learning, which he committed to the charge of pious 
 and learned monks. Pope Urban V. supported more than a thousand 
 students at different academies, supplying them also with books. The 
 celibacy of the clergy did more for the erection of Schools for the poor, 
 than perhaps anything else. Clergymen whose income exceeded their 
 expenses, felt bound by the spirit, if not by the letter of the canon law, 
 to appropriate the surplus to charitable purposes, among which the prin¬ 
 cipal was the founding of hospitals and Schools, The forty-four Colleges 
 attached to the University of Paris were most of them founded by clergy¬ 
 men, prompted thereto by religious and charitable motives. 
 
 The greatest boast of this age is the founding of common and free 
 Schools. Catholicity was the real foundress of such institutions. Money 
 is now necessary for every thing—it is the great, almost the only mo¬ 
 tive of action. Teachers will not labor without remuneration. Free 
 Schools cannot be established now, unless the community be heavily 
 taxed for their support. It was not so in the good old Catholic times. 
 Christian charity was a coin which then circulated freely, supplying the 
 place of money. Alas ! Charity hath grown cold! Even the poor must 
 now be supported by taxation ! Alas ! for the spirit of the ages of faith 1 
 
 3. Many Protestant writers have asserted, that nothing but scholastic 
 philosophy and theology was tought in the Schools and Universities of 
 the middle ages. No assertion could be more unfounded. True, those 
 sciences which spoke of heavenly things and of God, were more warmly 
 cherished; but mere human learning was not neglected. The great 
 Alcuin wrote to Charlemagne, from Tours, where he was teaching : “ Ac¬ 
 cording to your exhortations and good desire, 1 apply myself to minister 
 to some, under the roof of St. Martin, the honey of the holy scriptures. 
 Others I endeavor to inebriate with the old wine of ancient learning ; others 
 I begin to nourish with the apples of grammatical subtlety. Some I try 
 to illuminate in the science of tlie stars, as if of the painted canopy of some 
 great house ; I am made many things to many persons, that I may edify 
 as many as possible, to the advantage of the holy Church of God, and to 
 the iionor of our imperial kingdom.” Roger Bacon applied successfully 
 to the study of the practical sciences ; and in the thirteenth century he 
 made many brilliant discoveries, which would do honor to this age. Al- 
 
 bertus Magnus wrote an extensive treatise on natural history, in which he 
 
 12 
 
130 
 
 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES. 
 
 embodied all that was valuable in the works of Aristotle and Pliny, add* 
 ing many discoveries of his own. These are a few out of a hundred 
 examples that might be alleged, to prove that human science was culti¬ 
 vated in the “ Dark” ages. In all the Universities, mathematics and physics 
 were taught, as well as metaphysics and theology. 
 
 How advantageously do not the ancient Catholic Universities compare 
 with those of later date and of Protestant origin ! Look, for example, at 
 the boasted Universities of Germany. Drinking, smoking, duelling, and 
 secret associations are there the order of the day. Morality is banished 
 from them, and the ardor of study is greatly abated.* 
 
 1 See an able article on this subject in the North American Review for AorU, 1842,— a Review of 
 a late work on the German Universities. 
 
 / 
 
VIL INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY ON CIVIL 
 
 LIBERTY. 
 
 Terms defined—What is liberty ?—Which is the best form of government?—Direct and indirect inriu 
 ence—Tendency of Christian teaching—Division of the subject—Theoretical view—Equalizing ch« 
 social condition—Form of Church government—A happy blending of different elementt^ The 
 elective principle—Deliberative assemblies—Authority of the Pope—Practical influence of the 
 Church—In the early ages—In the middle ages—Rescuing Europe from barbarism—Means em¬ 
 ployed for humanizing society—Two Protestant testimonies—Slavery and the serf system—Struggle 
 between the Cross and the Crescent - The Crusades—Their influence on the social condition—The 
 Free Cities—In Spain—In Germany—And in Italy—Lombard I>eague—Italian Republics—Guelphs 
 and Ghibelliues—The deposing power—Republics of San Marino and Andorra—The monastic 
 institute-Teaching of mediasval theologians— Magna Charta —William Wallace Robert Bruce, 
 and William Tell—Influence of the reformation on liberty—In Germany—And in England—Cath¬ 
 olic patriots during the American revolution—Conclusion. 
 
 This subject should be approached with clear ideas on its nature, as well 
 as with certain fixed principles to guide us in our investigation. These 
 principles are contained in the title placed above, as in a germ, and we can¬ 
 not, perhaps, better introduce this paper, than by a brief definition of ihe 
 words of which it is composed. 
 
 Liberty^ especially with its qualification, civile is not an absolute, but a rel¬ 
 ative term. It has no fixed nor determinate meaning, whether we regard its 
 etymology or its general acceptation among mankind. It implies, in general, 
 some exemption from external restraint; but the amount of this exemption, 
 as well as the quantum of restraint compatible with liberty, can be deter¬ 
 mined by no absolute standard. What is called liberty in one age, and 
 under one set of circumstances, would be called slavery in another, and in a 
 new order of things. Two extreme cases are, however, excluded by the 
 meaning generally attached to the term : that of complete external restraint, 
 which we call slavery, and that of no restraint whatever, either on person 
 or action; which latter, though it may be thought to exist in the untrvam- 
 meled savage of the forest, never has existed de facto, and in the nature of 
 things never can exist, in any well organized civil society. Between these 
 two extremes, the meaning of the term varies according to times, persons, 
 and circumstances. 
 
 The very idea of government implies some restraint on individual liberty. 
 The compact, express or implied, between the governor and the governed, 
 necessarily supposes some sacrifice of personal freedom on the part of the 
 latter for the general good of the body politic. The extent of this sacrifice 
 must be determined by the character of the people to be governed, and by 
 reflection on the great end of all civil governments, which is to secure to the 
 
 governed, the possession of life, lionor and property. And without ven-' 
 
 131 
 
132 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 luring- to pronounce definitely on a question, which has been so long agitated 
 among the most civ ilized nations of the earth, we may safely say, that the 
 form of government, which combines the proper security of these great 
 objects with the greatest amount of personal freedom, is the best in theory 
 as well as in practice. In accordance with this principle, there can be no 
 doubt, that, whenever the character of the people can bear it, a well regu¬ 
 lated democracy is preferable to all other forms of government. But while 
 a predilection for our own cherished institutions is thus founded on reason¬ 
 ing from first principles, the liberal mind will not be led into the vulgar error 
 of condemning too harshly every other form of civil polity. Each may be 
 good in its place, and in reference to the people for whom it is appointed. 
 Governments, like garments, must suit the persons for whom they are 
 designed. 
 
 When we speak of the influence of Catholicity on civil liberty, we are 
 not to be understood as implying that this influence is always direct, or that 
 it is a primaiy object of our holy religion. Christ did not come to decide 
 the complicated problems of human governments; His mission had a 
 higher, — a holier purpose. He came not to pronounce on the political 
 difierences existing among mankind, but to establish, a divine system,—a 
 kingdom not of this world, — into which all were admissible, no matter 
 under what form of government Providence might have cast their lot. One 
 cannot be a good Christian without being a good citizen; and all that our 
 blessed Saviour is recorded to have said on this subject, is that remarkable 
 answer of his to the Scribes and Pharisees: “Render, therefore, unto Ctesar 
 the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”* 
 
 But if Christianity was not intended to have a direct, it at least has had 
 a most powerful indirect influence on civil governments. By elevating and 
 eiTOobling man’s nature,— by dissipating the errors of his mind, and 
 expanding the affections of his heart, it has necessarily promoted even his 
 earthly happiness, and improved his social condition. By slow, but steady 
 ^degrees, it has broken the fetters of the slave and of the captive, and prepared 
 mankind for full and perfect liberty. The emancipation of the mind and 
 heart from the slavery of error and sin, was a primary object of the Chris¬ 
 tian religion, expressed in those words of Christ: “You shall know the 
 truth, and the truth shall make you free.”^ This higher freedom once 
 secured, man was naturally led to break other bonds. Christianity thus 
 threw upon earthly things a light reflected from heaven, and pointed tri¬ 
 umphantly to the great “City of God,” as more than realizing all the 
 brightest visions of human freedom and happiness ! 
 
 The influence of Catholicity on civil liberty may be viewed in a twofold 
 light: the one theoretical, the other practical. The former is that of her 
 doctrines and government; the latter, that of her external action on society. 
 We will endeavor to show that, under both aspects, this influence has been 
 favorable to the development of free principles, and to the progress of civil 
 liberty. 
 
 1 Matt. xxii. 
 
 2 St. John Tiii, 32. 
 
ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 133 
 
 1. Though the divine Founder of the Christian Cliurcli did not intend 
 lo inlerfere with civil governments, yet the tendency of his doctrines was 
 to equalize the social condition of mankind, — to exalt the humble, and 
 to humble the proud. His was a religion which solaced and raised up 
 the poor; and taught tliose in power to bear their honors meekly, and to 
 remember that all Christians are equal before God, with wliom “there is 
 no exception of persons.’' The Church founded by Christ has ever been 
 guided by thes* principles. She has always proclaimed the truth, that all 
 mankind were born alike “ children of wrath,”* and that by baptism they 
 all become equally “ children of God.” With her “ there is neither gentile 
 nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond 
 nor free ; but, Christ is all, and in all.”** The prince and the beggar, — 
 the princess and the poorest peasant girl, — kneel side by side in her most 
 stately temples, all reduced to the same level of humble suppliants for mercy! 
 The pew system, which establishes distinctions in churches, is a modern 
 invention unknown to Catholic times, and still unknown in Catholic 
 countries. St. Peter’s church, with pews, would present a spectacle, blend¬ 
 ing strangely the sublime and the ridiculous. It would be something like 
 the Englishman’s project, to have the front of that magnificent temple 
 painted and penciled in the modern style 1 In this, and in every other 
 respect, the Church has fully carried out the intentions of her divine 
 Founder ; she has ever been the mother of the poor, a^nd the comfortress of 
 the afflicted. Christ neglected the rich and mingled freely with the poor f 
 she has caught His spirit, and, in every age, has imitated His example; as 
 we trust to show in the sequel. 
 
 The analogy of these principles with those embodied in our Declaration 
 of Independence, must be manifest to every reflecting mind; while their 
 influence on the social condition could not be otherwise than favorable to 
 the development of free principles, as well as destructive of tyranny. Nor 
 was this tendency neutralized by the form of Church government. It is 
 not necessary to inquire, whether this be monarchical, aristocratical, or 
 /lemocratical, or, a blending of the three. Suffice it to say, that, as its 
 objects are widely dili’erent from those of any human government, so its 
 nature is also widely diflerent. To preserve His followers in unity of faith 
 and worship, and to unite them into one compact body, Christ instituted a 
 form of government, tiie best calculated to secure these ends ; and, at the 
 same time, compatible with every condition of human society. These objects 
 are entirely spiritual and supernatural, and the form of government, though 
 external, is accordingly marked by the same qualities. The arms of the 
 Church are not carnal, but spiritual. Her “ kingdom is not of this w^orld,” 
 and, therefore, cannot be incompatible with any worldly government. 
 
 Though we -cannot, for the reasons indicated, di-aw an exact parallel 
 betw’een her form of government and those of civil society, yet, wv! might 
 be warranted in saying, that the former combines all the excellencies of the 
 latter, without their defects. It is an elective monarchy, an arisiocracy of 
 
 l Eplitis. ii, 3. 
 
 7»Q 
 
 2 Colons, iii. 11, 
 
134 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 merit, and a democracy without party factions. Every Christian man, no 
 matter how lowly, is eligible to the highest offices in the Church. Many of 
 the Popes have been chosen from the lowest walks of life. The late Pontifl* 
 was an example of this. His merit alone raised him from an humble situ¬ 
 ation in a small village of northern Italy, Belluno, to the highest honors of 
 the hierarchy. And, as an illustration of this same principle, we may 
 remark here, by the way, that of the forty-one Pontiffs, who during the 
 last three hundred years have occupied the chair of St. Peter, only five 
 have been Roman citizens; and that, during the same period, very few 
 Popes have been elected from princely families. The same remark applies 
 to the body of cardinals, who in general receive their honors solely as the 
 award of merit and learning. Nor do the four or five, out of seventy, 
 selected from noble families, form an exception to this remark. Not to 
 speak of others, every one has heard of the eminent virtues and transcendant 
 merit of the late sainted Cardinal Odescalchi. 
 
 The elective principle, differently modified according to circumstances, 
 has also been applied in every age of the Church to the second great order 
 of the hierarchy, the bishops. In Catholic countries, where the require¬ 
 ments of the canon law can be complied with, they are usually elected by 
 the clergy or chapter, according to certain established forms. In this 
 country, and in some others, the election, or rather presentation of candidates, 
 is made by the bishops of the metropolitan province, in accordance with a 
 canon of the great Nicene council, held in 325. If the approval and action 
 • of the holy see are necessary, before any election can take effect, it is to 
 secure unity of government, and to prevent the intrusion of unworthy mem¬ 
 bers into the hierarchy. So far was this elective principle carried during the 
 lirst ages of the Church, that, in many cases, the people had a voice with the 
 clergy in the election of their bishops ; more, however, it must be confessed, 
 as witnesses of the qualities of the candidate, than as regular electors. Thus 
 we read, that St. Ambrose and St. Augustine were ciiosen bishops by the 
 clergy and people of Milan and Hippo. Factions and other inconveniences 
 attending this mode of election caused its gradual abolition, and the substi¬ 
 tution of other safer forms ; but the spirit and practice of the Church have 
 nevertheless always inclined her, in the election of bishops, to consider 
 not only the qualities of the candidate, but also how far he might prove 
 acceptable to the flock to be committed to his charge. 
 
 Another essential feature of democracy, is the decision of all matters of 
 importance in deliberative assemblies. The Church has exhibited this 
 feature as strikingly as any republic; and she has presented the oldest and 
 best models of such assemblies. From the councils held by the apostles, 
 mentionedin the Acts, down to that of Trent, in the sixteenth century, she 
 has constantly applied this principle, in regard both to the decision of con¬ 
 troversies on doctrinal points, and to statutes of discipline. Not only does 
 it pervade her whole history, but it ramifies throughout her entire body, 
 spread over the surface of the earth. It is exhibited in diocesan synods^ 
 held annually in each diocese, for the regulation of local discipline ; in pro- 
 
 a 
 
ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 1S5 
 
 rincial councils held every three years, in accordance with the decree of 
 the Tridentine council; in national councils held at stated intervals, for the 
 regulation of national discipline; and in general councils, which meet only 
 during the greatest emergencies of the Church. That the disciplinary 
 statutes of all these various deliberative assemblies may be in harmony 
 with the general laws of the Church, they cannot take effect without the 
 approval of the holy see; which in this, as in every other respect, is thus 
 an effective center of unity, and the great conservative principle of the 
 Church. 
 
 It has been said, that the authority of the Pope is absolute and despotic. 
 No charge could be more unfounded. It is true, that ho derives his 
 authority immediately from Christ, who gave to him, in the person of 
 Peter, full power to feed the sheep as well as the lambs of His entire flock 
 (John xxi). It is true, also, that this power is ample enough to meet 
 every emergency that may arise. But it is equally true, that it is neces¬ 
 sarily limited by its own nature, and by the objects it was instiLuted to 
 promote. It can do every thing, in its own appropriate sphere, and for the 
 edification of the body of Christ;—out of its own province, and for destruc¬ 
 tion, it is powerless. The exercise of the pontifical power is variously 
 i\3strained by the decrees of general councils, the enactments of the canon 
 law, and the force of precedent. Whatever opinion may be entertained 
 about the theory, the practice of papal authority has ever been regulated 
 by these fixed principles. The wisdom and consistency of the court of 
 Rome, and its rigid adherence to precedent, not only in the substance, 
 but also as to the very form of its decisions, are well known to the world. 
 Even Protestants with the most violent prejudices have been forcibly 
 struck by this fact, and sadly puzzled to account for it to tlieir own satis¬ 
 faction. The Pope usually decides nothing without consulting his counselors, 
 the college of cardinals, and seldom determines any thing against their 
 advice. Thougli the cases are not in every respect parallel, yet in viewing 
 the manner of procedure adopted by the Roman Court, we are forcibly 
 reminded of our President and Senate. The congregations, or committees 
 of cardinals for various purposes, correspond to the standing committees 
 of the Senate; and in tlie former matters are discussed with as much 
 patience and ability, to say the least, as in the latter. 
 
 II. But, as theories, however specious, might be thought to mislead 
 us, we come at once to what must be deemed decisive in the matter,— the 
 practical influence of Catholicity upon civil liberty. And, a mere glance 
 at the different epochs of Church History, in connection with the corres¬ 
 ponding phases of society, will suffice to show us, what that influence has 
 been, how it has promoted civilization, and, at least indirectly, developed 
 the democratic ^^’Inciple. 
 
 1. The Church was so trammeled and oppressed by the Roman govern¬ 
 ment, during the first three centuries of her existence, that her influence 
 on society during that period could neither be fully exerted, nor exten¬ 
 sively felt. Still, though crushed and bleeding, she spoke with a voice- 
 
 4a 
 
i 
 
 136 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 which raised up and comforted the poor and the persecuted, a«d eithei 
 softened the heart or struck terror into the bosom of the persecutor. In the 
 second century, Tertullian could already appeal to the immense number of 
 Christians in every part of the empire, as an argument to prove the utter 
 impotency of tyranny, and as a powerful inducement to stay the arm of 
 persecution. The vast body of early Christians were from the lowest walks 
 of life; these were exalted by the Christian profession ; and tlicie is no 
 doubt that the social condition of this order in the fourth century, when 
 Christianity finally gained the ascendency, was vastly more elevated than 
 it had been under the old Roman empire. Immense numbers of slaves 
 had been emancipated, and the higher orders of society had already learned 
 to look on the hitherto despised lower classes as their equals in Christ 
 Jesus. In the fourth century, we find the Church employing her newly 
 acquired influence on civil society, for the mitigation of despotism, and the 
 vindication of the oppressed. At Milan, we behold an Ambrose refusing 
 communion to the great Theodosius, who, in an evil hour, had ordered a 
 massacre of his people in the streets of Thessalonica, without distinction of 
 guilty and innocent. This stain of blood was washed out only by a public 
 penance, such as the lowest member of the Church would have been con¬ 
 strained to undergo for a similar offence. In the east, we see a Chry¬ 
 sostom rebuking, with all his burning eloquence, the vices of an empress ; 
 and, though his life was the forfeit of his courage, his blood still cried 
 aloud against vice in high places, and the people raised a monument to his 
 memoi y ! We say nothing of an Athanasius, of a Hilary, and of various 
 Roman Pontiff's, who, during the fierce days of Arianism, had the courage 
 to suft'er for the faith, and to tell the truth to those emperors, who, before 
 their conversion to Christianity, had been worshiped as gods, but were 
 now to be taught, that they were but weak, erring men. 
 
 2. When the Roman empire fell, and the successive hordes of the 
 heathen or Arian Northmen overran Europe, for more than two centuries 
 spreading desolation in their course, the Church alone saved the world 
 from barbarism. Like the ark of old, she rode triumphant amid this 
 second deluge of waters, bearing in her bosom the sacred seeds of civili¬ 
 sation ; which, when those dark waters should subside, she was again to 
 .scatter broadcast on the surface of the earth. Not only this, but she was 
 to water them with her tears and her blood, was to cherish their growth, 
 and to gather the abundant fruit they would yield, “ for the healing of the 
 nations.” From the fifth to the tenth century, she successfully labored 
 for the conversion of the Northmen, and during this period she had the 
 consolation of seeing them enter, nation by nation, within her pale. Mean¬ 
 time she sought by various means to soften their fierceness, to improve 
 their legislation, and to diminish the evils of the feudal system, which they 
 had brought into Europe. The bloody strifes which this system occa¬ 
 sioned, were mitigated by the famous “ Truce of God which enacted, 
 that out of reverence to the Lord’s passion and resurrection, all hostilities 
 should be suspended fi-om the evening of Wednesday to the morning of 
 
 if 
 
ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 137 
 
 the following Monday.’ She gradually abolished the absurd and super¬ 
 stitious ordeals by fire and water, and substituted for them more rational 
 forms of trial. She raised her voice ao-ainst the cruel sacrifice of life in 
 
 O 
 
 the joust and tournament, by enacting a severe canon against such 
 pageants.^ 
 
 To shield the oppi^ssed, and to protect the persecuted in those days of 
 bloody feuds, she established the privilege of asylum, and declared, that 
 whoever souo-ht refuofe near the altar of God should be free from the attacks 
 of every enemy. In one word, she did all that was possible under the cir¬ 
 cumstances, to ameliorate the social condition of mankind ; and if she did 
 not fully succeed according to her wishes, it was not “her fault,” but 
 “ that of the times.” Thouo-h, amidst the din of arms and the confusion 
 
 . V. . ° 
 
 of society, her voice was not always heard, yet when heard it was gene¬ 
 rally respected. In fact, hers was the only authority that was generally 
 reverenced during the period in question ; and if she had not interposed 
 it, no human power could have saved Europe from complete barbarism. 
 By averting this overwhelming evil, she made it possible for Europe to 
 be free ; and this argument alone would prove that all the subsequent 
 advancement of Europe in civilization and in liberal government, is to be 
 ascribed to her influence, as to its source. 
 
 As an able American Protestant writer candidly acknowledges : 
 
 “ Tliough seemingly enslaved, the Church was in reality the life of 
 Europe. She was the refuge of the distressed, the friend of the slave, 'the 
 helper of the injured, the only hope of learning. To her, chivahy owed 
 its noble aspirations ; to her, art and agriculture |ooked for every improve¬ 
 ment. The ruler from her learned some rude justice; the ruled learned 
 faith and obedience. Let us not cling to the superstition, which teaches 
 that the Church has always upheld the cause of tyrants. Through the 
 middle ages she was the only friend and advocate of the people, and of the 
 rio-hts of man. To her influence was it owing; that, through all that 
 strange era, the slaves of Europe were better protected by law than are 
 now the free blacks of the United States by the national statutes.” ^ 
 
 Another Protestant writer gives the following opinion of the influence 
 which the Catholic Church exercised on civilization, especially during the 
 middle ages: 
 
 “ A desire of corporate security, and a vague notion of an imperial 
 majesty, an absolute and sacred power vested in an individual, were the 
 bequests of ancient times to the middle ages. Christianity, or rather 
 reverence for the Church, was the most powerfully formative opinion of 
 modern civilization, and here it is especially^ necessary to distinguish 
 between the institution and the ideas on which it was founded. The 
 antiquities of clerical organization need not now be investigated ; it is 
 sufficient to say, that the Christian Church, before it was established by 
 Constantine, had a fixed system of government with a due subordination 
 of parts, and that, when Christianity became the established religion of the 
 
 1 For a beautiful explanation and illustration of this regulation, see Dr. Wiseman’s Lectures on 
 the Holy Week, delivered at llmiie. . 
 
 2 See Can. xx. of the third Laterasi council, held A. D. 1179, under Alexander 111. 
 
 3 North American lleview. for .Jul\ , 1845. 
 
 Q2 • , 
 
 I 
 
138 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 empire, the clergy at the same moment became an organized and recognized 
 political body. In the decay of municipal institutions, tlie bishops and 
 priests succeeded to the influence of the civic magistrates, not by usur¬ 
 pation, but by the sheer pi-essure of circumstances, possessing the additional 
 advantages of irresponsibility—for their offices were deemed sacred and 
 inalienable. From the fifth to tlie nintli century, the barbarian elements 
 of force and violent movement wei-e predominant, because horde followed 
 liorde, as wave follows wave, and one race of the conquerors liad scarcely 
 established itself in a country, when it was forced to make room for another. 
 But amid all these changes and convulsions, the Church remained firm 
 and unshaken; like a gallant vessel in the stormy ocean, it rode proudly 
 over the billows, and, thougli it sometimes bowed before a sudden burst 
 of the tempest, it instantly rose again in all its pride and all its security. 
 
 “ The Church was the first permanent establishment of modern Europe ; 
 for four centuries it alone maintained the strim-o-le ao-ainst barbai^sm : it 
 
 o o o 
 
 preserved the memory of municipal freedom and Roman majesty in 
 temporal government, and ac-tually established the system in spiritual 
 affairs ; and, by working on ignorance, superstition, and barbarity, by 
 means too closely adapted to the materials of the operation, it obtained a 
 mastery over the energies of the northern tribes, and not unfrequeirtly the 
 guidance and direction of their movements. Such a power was legiti¬ 
 mated not merely by continuance but by its usefulnesss, and from the 
 Church, temporal authority was almost at the outset forced to borrow its 
 sanctions and derive its legitimacy. 
 
 “It is needless to describe feudality, or point out its inherent tyranny 
 and injustice: but that it was necessary in its age is indisputably proved 
 by its universal adoption in every European country nearly at the same 
 time; the first consequence of the system was a transfer of the influence of 
 the towns to the country, and the almost total extinction of municipal institu¬ 
 tions, the last relic of ancient civilization. It was apparently a retrogra- 
 dation to anarchy ; it was subversive of all social security and happiness ; 
 but it fostered the growth of individual prowess. The chivalrous virtues, 
 such as they were, sprung from feudalism; the chivalrous literature, by 
 which these virtues were exaggerated and the accompanying vices con¬ 
 cealed, was the child of the same parent, and for many centuries has 
 thrown a bright veil over the horrors of its origin. Feudalism was the 
 worst foe to social order, because it was equally opposed to the sovereignty 
 of the monarch and the liberty of the people. Could it have held its 
 position, luirope must have sunk into barbarism ; but it had to oppose a 
 powerful principle,— the influence of the Church. In the eleventh century 
 ilie papacy fought the battle of freedom and civilization. 
 
 “It was under the pressure of the feudal system that the organization of 
 the papacy was completed and defined ; there is no part of the Romish 
 creed, not one of the Romish institutions, that was not of the utmost 
 importance in the great struggle it had to maintain : and of the doctrines 
 and practices on which ‘the nineteenth century passes just sentence of 
 condemnation (!) there isscarcely one that could have been spared seven 
 hundred years ago, without imminent peril to the great cause of human 
 civilization and social happiness. By its numerous gradations of rank, 
 the Church of the middle ages linked itself to every class of society ; its 
 bishops were the companions of princes ; its priests claimed reverence in 
 the baronial hall; its preaching friars and monks brought consolation to 
 the cottage of the suflering peasant. When the distinction of caste was 
 rightly established in every other form of social life, the Church scarcely 
 knew any aristocracy but that of talent; once received into holy orders- 
 
ON.Cl VIL LIBERTY. 
 
 139 
 
 the serf lost all traces of his bondage ; he was not merely raised to an 
 equality with his former lord, but lie might aspire to dignities that cast 
 those of temporal princes into the shade. 
 
 “ Before we pass sentence on an institution, we should examine the 
 opinion on which it is founded ; and before we judge of the opinion, we 
 should know the circumstances by which it was engendered. The public 
 opinion of Europe in the eleventh century was represented by a ti-uly great 
 man, Hildebrand, or, as he was called after his accession to the chair of 
 St. Peter, Gregory VII. It has been tlie fashion to describe this prelate 
 as a species of moral monster, the enemy of all improvement. There is no 
 doubt that a Pope possessing anything like his influence, who would propose 
 and strive to enforce, the same measures in the nineteenth century that 
 Gregory did in the eleventh, might justly be regarded as one of ,the worst 
 despots that ever existed, and furthermore as one of the most blundering 
 tyrants that ever disgraced humanity ; there is just as little, indeed rather 
 less doubt, that in his own age every one of these measures counteracted 
 some evil principle, and helped to work out an antagonizing principle of 
 civilization. Gregory VII. was a reformer as well as Luther,' he used 
 despotic means, but there were no otiiers at his disposal; lie was nearly 
 in the ecclesiastical world what Charlamao’ne and Peter the Great have 
 
 O 
 
 been in the political; he wished to reform the Church and by means of the 
 Church to reform civil society, to introduce into both more morality, 
 justice, and order; he did not live to see the triumph of his principles, but 
 he prepared the way for the rule of his successors. The theory of 
 Hildebrand’s system was beautiful; it apparently based supreme power 
 upon intelligence, and concentrated both in the Church.” ^ 
 
 3. The influence of the Church had already done much towards miti¬ 
 gating, and gradually destroying that odious feature, common to every 
 form of ancient pagan society, — domestic slavery ; by which the vast body 
 of mankind had been held in bondage to a few who alone could claim the 
 right of citizenship.^ She now set about abolishing that form of slavery 
 which had been introduced by the Northmen, and which was intimately 
 blended Avith tlie feudal system. Under this polity, the*vast body of the 
 people were called serfs, and could be bought and sold with the soil to 
 which they were attached. With this abject class, the Church sympa¬ 
 thized most deeply. Like her divine Founder, she has ever viewed the 
 poor as her favored children. But, in this as in every thing else, she 
 proceeded slowly and cautiously, knowing that every great beneficial 
 change, designed to affect whole masses of population, must be the woi k of 
 time. Without violence — without any sudden shock of the social system —• 
 she slowly, but surely effected her object, and serfism was gradually 
 abolished, wherever her voice could be lieard. Under the influence of 
 her humanizing principles and mild legislation, the condition of the serfs 
 was gradually improved ; until, the way having been thus wisely prepared, 
 the system disappeared altogether from European society. To show that 
 the social elevation and subsequent emancipation oi the serfs were mainly 
 
 1 Kvery reader of liistory will know how to draw the line of distinction between Luther and 
 Grej'ory V!l.; h\xx\ii-v reformed from high to low, Gregory, from low to high. 
 
 2 Tlie Foreign Quarterly Heview 
 
 3 .See. for a full de\elo|.ment of this interesting topic, Baluiee ‘-Catholicity and Protestantism 
 Compared,” Ch. xv, and following. 
 
140 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 *1 
 
 due to the Catholio Church, a very striking fact may be alleged. The 
 only country in Europe where the serf system still exists in all its debase¬ 
 ment, is Russia; which, long torn by schism from the Catholic Church, 
 has always resisted her influence in this respect, with as much blind 
 obstinancy as she has done in the matter of the Gregorian calendar.' 
 
 4. After having thus rescued Europe from barbarism and domestic 
 servitude, the Church was destined to save her from a still more appalling 
 evil,— the subversion of her independence by a foreign religioso-political 
 despotism. The followers of Mohammed, after having overrun Asia and 
 Africa, entered and subdued Spain.in the year 711. In 732, their vic¬ 
 torious arinies had penetrated to the very heart of France ; and, though in 
 the famous battle of Tours, fought in this year, Charles Martel, with his 
 French troops, utterly discomfited them, yet their spirit of conquest was 
 not broken by the overwhelming defeat. Recovering from its effects, they 
 became masters of the Mediterranean sea in the tenth century ; and they 
 had already established a piratical colony in the south of France, and had 
 twice ravaged Rome itself, before the year 906.^ They subdued Sicily, 
 and other important islands in the Mediterranean ; and Spain being already 
 in their possession, they threatened Constantinople in the east, while the 
 whole southern frontier of Europe was open to their incursions. Europe, 
 thus menaced with a foreign yoke, which aliieady weighed heavily on the 
 necks of half the world, was in no condition to repel invasion. Broken 
 into fragments by the feudal system, and torn by petty wars, she could 
 not expect to cope with the immense united host embattled against her 
 under the crescent. 
 
 In this emergency, the Church and tlie Popes came to the rescue ; and 
 whoever will read history aright, must see that it is mainly to their influence 
 that Europe is indebted for her independence, and with it, for all her 
 social advantaged over other countries. That master stroke of policy, 
 which, by means of the Crusades, carried tlie war into the enemy’s country, 
 and for two centuries made Palestine the battle ground of the world, kept 
 off the threatened invasion, and preserved Constantinople, the great bul¬ 
 wark of Europe in the East, for centuries ; and, while it gave the Moham¬ 
 medans enough to do at home, it allowed Europe time to breathe, and to 
 prepare for the coming struggle. And yet, with all this preparation for 
 the final contest, Europe still proved almost unequal to it, after the Turks 
 had taken Constantinople, in 1453. For more than two centuries after 
 this event, not only lier peace, but her very independence, was threatened 
 by the Turks. The Popes were always at the head of the league for 
 repelling Turkish invasion ; and the glorious result of the famous sea-fight 
 at Lepanto in 1571, which destroyed the Turkish fleet, and drove the 
 
 1 For a full and satisfactory account of the present moral, social and religious condition of Russia 
 see De Maistre, “ Du Pape,” vol. ii, where he enters into this subject at length. Eveu Voltaire, that 
 implaca'ble enemy of the Popes, awards them much praise for their agency in miiigating and abolish¬ 
 ing the serf system ; though here, as elsewhere, his quotations are not always reliable Essai sur 
 Jes lloeurs, Ch. Ixxxiii. 
 
 2 See Muratori, “Annali di Italia,” ad an. 906, etc. Also Ilallam’s Middle Ages, Ch.i, p. 25. 
 
ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 141 
 
 Ottoman flag from the Mediterranean, is mainly to be ascribed to the 
 exertions of the sainted Pope Pius V. As late as 1683, th'e Turkish army 
 was under the walls of Vienna, and that city was saved only by the timely 
 appearance of Sobieski and his thirty thousand brave Poles, invited to the 
 rescue by Pope Innocent XI. 
 
 5. But the Crilsades did more than to secure the independence of 
 Europe. To them, more perhaps than to any other cause, are we to attri¬ 
 bute the social improvement of mankind, and the rise of free institutions. 
 They united Europe in one great cause, they impaired the feudal system 
 and consolidated government, they rid Europe of many petty despots who 
 were firebrands in the heart of society; they elicited enterprise, stimu¬ 
 lated commerce, fostered industry, and cherished mechanical skill, by 
 opening a market in the east to the products of European industry. Many 
 of our greatest inventions, and among them, that of gunpowder and the 
 mariner’s compass, date back to the period of the Crusades. But what is 
 still more to our present purpose, they raised the lower classes, and gave 
 importance to the cities. The Free Cities of the middle ages,— those first 
 nurseries of free principles,—owed their origin and their privileges mainly 
 to the startling events connected with those' expeditions. At least, this v 
 is true in regard to those of Italy, which during these excursions into 
 Palestine, became the commercial carriers of Europe. 
 
 ' The limits of this essay will allow but a rapid view of the Free Cities of 
 the middle ages ; and we wdll speak chiefly of those of Spain, Germany, 
 and Italy. Of those of France, M. Guizot, a Protestant, treats at length, 
 in his late singular lectures “on Civilization in Modern Europe.” ^ 
 
 If we except those of Italy, the Cities of Spain, were the first in Europe 
 which received’charters of privileges. These they obtained from various 
 Spanish monarchs, for military services reifdered, or to be rendered the 
 state, in the long contest with the Moors for national independence. As 
 early as the year 1020, Alfonzo V. granted a charter of rights to the city of 
 Leon. Saiicho the Great and Alfonso VI., in the same century, extended 
 similar’privileges to many other cities. These charters, oxfueros, allowed 
 them to elect their own city council, judges and other municipal officers, 
 and to send deputies to the Cortes of the kingdom. We read of many 
 cities sending their deputies to the Cortes in the year 1169. From the 
 reign of Alfonso IX. in 1188, we have constant mention “of a great 
 number of deputies from each city.”^ In the Cortes of Burgos, in 1315, 
 there were present one hundred and ninety-two delegates from ninety 
 diflerent cities ; and in that of Madrid, in 1391, one hundred and twenty- 
 six deputies attended from fifty cities.^ 
 
 The Spanish monarchs had no right to levy taxes, without the consent of 
 the people duly represented in the Cortes.^ In granting a supply to 
 
 1 M. Guizot bflonjjs to that iiiodeni school of philosophers, called Eclectics. In discussing' his¬ 
 tory, he takes both sides of a most every question, and in many instances it would require a wizard 
 or a diplomatist like hiiii>eif. to define his real position. 
 
 2 In the old Spanish of that day, “ mududunibre de embiados de cada cibdad.'' 
 
 3 For the original authorities, see llallam's Middle Ages, chap, iv, p. 200, et seq. -1 Ibid. p. 208-9 
 
112 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 Henry HI. in 1393, the Cortes required, “ that he should swear before one 
 of the archbishops, not to take or demand any money, seiwice or loan, or 
 any thing else of the cities or towns, nor of individuals belonging to them, 
 on any pretence of necessity, until the three estates of the ‘kingdom should 
 be duly summoned and assembled in Cortes, according to ancient usage. 
 And if any such letters requiring money have been written, that they shah 
 he obeyed, hut not complied with} Mr. Hallam admits, that “ the civil 
 rights of rich and poor in (Spanish) courts of justice were as equal as in 
 England.” ^ 
 
 The Church exercised a great and even direct influence in bringing 
 about this development of the democratic principle in Spain. The eccle¬ 
 siastical councils, and especially those of Toledo, constituted the basis of 
 all Spanish jurisprudence ; and the old Spanish civil laws were published 
 in the ecclesiastical collections.* The councils of Spain, as of many others 
 countries of Europe, during the middle ages, were often mixed assemblages 
 of bishops, nobles, and deputies from cities ; and they often decided on tem¬ 
 poral as well as on spiritual matters. This fact is a key to many of the 
 difficulties connected with Church History during that period. The fourth 
 council of Toledo enacts, that “on the death of a king, the princes of the 
 kingdom, together with the clergy, shall elect his successor by common 
 consent. 
 
 From all these facts, we gather : first, that Spain, during the middle 
 ages, was in possession of these great democratic principles, — exemption 
 from taxation without the consent of the people, free and full represenUi- 
 tionof popular interests in the national Cortes, and an elective monarciiy; 
 and secondly, that the Church was mainly instrumental in securing to her 
 these precious advantages. Her liberties began to decline’in the sixieeiith 
 century, under Charles V. ahd Philip II. ; and one great cause of the 
 declension, was the supposed necessity of strong measures of precautio.i 
 against the civil commotions occasioned by the reformation in other 
 countries of Europe. By the way, it is rather a singular fact, that civil 
 liberty should have declined in every country of Europe in the sixteenth 
 century. Even Guizot admits this.* 
 
 In Germany, the cities of Worms and Cologne acquired political 
 importance under Henry IV., A. D. 1076. His successor, Henry V., 
 granted enfranchisement to the artisans in various other cities of tlie 
 Germanic empire. The citizens were classed according to their respective 
 employments.® Frederick I. granted a charter to the city of Spire in 
 1188, and various other German cities began to elect their own municipal 
 officers, and to have a voice in the diet of the empire, after this date. In 
 
 1 ‘’Obedecidas, y non cumplidas.” In refusinj', the Cortes still maintained that lofty style of 
 deference for their sovereigns, which has ever marked the Spanish character. 
 
 2 Ibid p. 201. 3 Ibid. 206. See also Guizot’s Lectures, etc. 
 
 4 “ Defuncto in pace principe primates totius regni una cum sarcerdotibus successorein regni 
 communi consilio coustituant.” See Marina, Teorisi do las Cortes, t. ii, p. 2; and Id. Ensayo I’olitico, 
 etc., chap Ixvi; and Hallam ibid. p. 206. 
 
 5 See Guizots Lectures, p.300, et seq. 
 
 6 See Schmidt. Qoschichte, ete., tom. iii, p. 239 et seq. quoted by Hallam, chap, iv, p. 238-9. 
 
ON CIVIL L IB ERT Y . 
 
 148 
 
 the thirteenth century, they became more opulent and still more inde¬ 
 pendent. The three orders of electors, princes, and dep\ities from cities, 
 took their respective places in the diet of Frankfort in 1344. The 
 provincial states of the Germanic empire had also their own privileges, 
 and they managed their own local affairs. The great fundamental principle 
 of mediaeval jurisprudence in Germany, was that “ no taxes were to he 
 levied on the people without their own consent 
 
 In Italy, as we have already intimated, the Free Cities obtained impor¬ 
 tance during the Crusades, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The 
 Popes were their principal protectors; while the emperors of Germany 
 viewed their growing liberties with an evil eye. In a diet held at 
 Roncao-lia in 1158, Frederick Barbarossa endeavored to wrest from them 
 their privileges, and to subject them to the German yoke. The cities 
 rebelled, but they were soon reduced to subjection by the armies of 
 Frederick, who, to strike terror into the Italian mind, caused the city 
 of Milan to be razed to the ground, in 1162. But he was disappointed in 
 his expectations. The principal cities of Lombardy united in the famous 
 Lombard League, in 1167; and their inhabitants swore that they would 
 either maintain their liberties, or be buried beneath the ruins of their 
 houses. Pope Alexander III. was at the head of this League ; and when , 
 the decisive battle fought near Legnano, in 1176,* had been won by the 
 Italians, the’Pope was the principal negotiator on the part of Italy in the 
 treaty of Venice in 1177, which secured to them their liberties. The 
 grateful people built the city of Alexandria, in honor of their illustrious 
 patron. ^ 
 
 In the Free Cities of Italy,the democratic principle was developed more 
 fully than in those of any other part of Europe. They became, in fact, 
 independent and regularly organized republics. Was it because they 
 were more immediately under the influence of the Church, and of the 
 Popes ? Certain it is, that the Popes contributed much to their origin, 
 and greatly fostered their growth. Under their auspices, Venice, Genoa, 
 Florence, Pisa, Sienna, Brescia, Bergamo, and Milan became a bright 
 galaxy of free governments. And though their light was subsequently 
 obscured by the clouds of faction, yet most of them continued to shine 
 throughout the middle ages ; and two of them, Genoa and Venice, lingered 
 above the horizon, though with diminished lustre, almost until our own day. 
 
 6. The fierce and bloody factions of the Guelphs and Ghibellines 
 contributed, perhaps more than any other cause, to mar the prosperity of 
 Italy, during the period of which we are speaking. To them chiefly, are 
 we to ascribe the decline and downfall of many of the Italian republics. 
 These factions originated in Germany, after the death of the Emperor 
 Henry VI. in 1197. Two aspirants, Philip duke of Swabia, and Otto 
 duke of Saxony and Bavaria, maintained a long and bloody contest for the 
 imperial crown. The former belonged to the family of the Ghibellini; 
 
 1 See Ilallam, ibid. 
 
 2 See Hallam’s Middle Agee, chap, iii, p. 134-5. Also Muratori, Dissert. 48, .\ntiq. Medii .SIvi. 
 
144 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 and the latter to that of the Este-Guelphi. Both families were originally 
 from Italy, whe're they were still numerous and influential.* The contest 
 between them raged even more fiercely, and for a much longer time, in 
 Italy than in Germany itself. In fact, the greatest political misfortunes 
 of Italy, in every age, have arisen from her having been drawn into the 
 vortex of German politics, and having become, against her will, the 
 theater of war for all Europe. These bloody factions continued to disturb 
 her for many centuries. The Guelphs advocated the independence of 
 Italy ; the Ghibellines sought to fasten on the neck of the Italians the 
 imperial yoke of Germany. It was but a renewal of the old contest, 
 which had a’iven rise to the Lombard League, and birth to the Italian 
 republics. During all this protracted struggle, the Popes were found 
 ranged on the side of the Guelphs ; and they thus exerted all their 
 influence to promote Italian liberty. Can any one blame them for sc 
 doing? What right had Germany to crush Italian liberty? Voltaire 
 himself applauds them for their course,^ and he says that the destruction 
 of Milan by Frederick Barbarossa would of itself “ suffice to justify the 
 Popes for all they did.”^ We may here remark, in general, that the Popes 
 during the middle ages, having been necessarily drawn by the circum¬ 
 stances of the times into European politics, used their influence, almost 
 without an exception, for checking tyranny, and maintaining the rights 
 of the people. And the more we fathom the interesting history of that 
 period, the more shall we become convinced of this great leading fact. 
 
 7. This is in nothing more apparent, than in their long struggle with 
 the German emperors ;■* and in the exercise by them of what is called the 
 deposing power. We care not to inquire, whether the Popes had this 
 power in virtue of their sacred office, or merely through the consent and 
 concession of the people and princes themselves, who often invoked it in 
 their behalf. One thing is certain, everv exercise of it was a blow aimed 
 at tyranny, and struck for the rights of the people. In deposing a prince, 
 tlie Pope simply declared, that he had broken his solemn engagement tc 
 his people — to govern them in accordance with justice ; and that they 
 were in consequence freed from all obligations to.him, growing out of 
 their oath of allegiance. The claim of the deposing power necessarily 
 supposed the doctrine of a contract, express or implied, between the king 
 and his people ; the former binding himself to protect their rights, and to 
 govern them justly, and the latter, under this condition only, pledging to 
 him their allegiance. Every exercise of the power kept this doctrine fresh 
 in the memory of the people, and thereby greatly contributed to the 
 unfolding of the democratic principle. Had the Popes labored in a similar 
 way, to recall to a sense of duty many other despots of that period, the 
 
 1 See Muratori, Antiquit, etc., Dissert. 41, for a full account of the.^e “ iliaboliche fazioni,” as he 
 Call? them. 
 
 2 Essai sur les Moeurs, tom. i, chap, xxxvii and xlv, and tom. ii, chap xlvii. 
 
 o Ibid tom. ii, chap Ixi.— 
 
 4 The Germanic empire was styled the Holy Roman Empire. Voltaire (ibid) with his usual 
 caustic wit, and with unusual truth, remarks,that this was a complete misnomer ; — '* it was neither 
 Holy, nor Roman, nor Etnpire.'' 
 
ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 145 
 
 heart of every patriot would leap with joy. The circumstances which 
 gave rise to this power having ceased, nearly three hundred years since, 
 the claim to it has been abandoned. 
 
 8. Of the old Catholic republics, two yet remain, standing monuments 
 of the influence of Catholicity on free institutions. The one is imbosomed 
 in the Pyrennees of Catholic Spain, and the other is perched on the 
 Appenines of Catholic Italy. The very names of x\ndorra and San 
 Marino are enough to refute the assertion, that Catholicity is opposed to 
 republican governments. Both of these little republics owed their origin 
 directly to the Catholic religion. That of Andorra was founded by a 
 Catholic bishop,* and that of San Marino, by a Catholic monk, whose 
 name it bears.^ The bishops of Urgel have been, and are still, the 
 protectors of the former ; and the Roman Pontiffs of the latter.^ Andorra 
 b.as continued to exist, with few political vicissitudes, for more than a 
 thousand years; while San Marino dates back her history more than 
 fifteen hundred years, and is therefore not only the oldest republic in the 
 world, but perliaps the oldest government in Europe. The former, to a 
 territory of two hundred English square miles, has a population of fifteen 
 thousand ; while the latter, with half the population, has a territory of 
 only twenty-one square miles. Both of them are governed by officers 
 
 1 A little after the beginning of the ninth centur}'^, Louis Le Debonnaire, the successor of 
 Charlemagne, ceded the territory of Andorra to the bisliops of Urgel. These exercised a very 
 mild feudal sovereignty over the republic for many centuries ; but the real authority w.as by them 
 permitted to be exercised by two Syndics, or governor.s, elected by a council of twenty-four members, 
 who were themselves chosen by the people of the si.x principal towns of the republic. The bishop 
 of Urgel now exercises only a spiritual jurisdiction over Andorra; even the loose authority growing 
 out of the feudal system, having ceased with the last, remnant of that sys em in Europe, more than 
 fifty years since.— See Make Brun's Geograi/hy. 
 
 2 Towards the close of the third century, the emperor Diocletian determined to rebuild the c*.ty 
 of Aritmnum or Kimini, which had fallen to ruins. For this puipose, he invited from Dalmatia, 
 his native country, a number of mechanics and architects. His invitation wa.s accepted, and, ia 
 the language of the liistoriau of lliinini, (Clementini, Raccolto Historico, infra cit.) ‘^venne atl 
 Ariminum un gran numero di architetti, scalptUini. o, diciamo tagliapietri, e muratori, e con essi 
 un'injinita d'operai Schiavoni; — there came to Ariminnra a great number of architects, stone¬ 
 cutters and masons, and with these an infinite number of Schlavonian workmen.” Among these 
 was one .Marinus, a man of excellent character and a fervent Christian. Kimini was soon restored 
 to more than its ancient glory. But in 303. Diocletian's partiality for this city was turned inta 
 hatred, on account of the vast number of Christians who lived within its walls. In the bloody 
 persecution which he raised against the Church, the streets of Kimini ’■'■flowed with rivers of 
 Catholic bloody not to earth but to heaven.^' (Clemeutini infra cit.) Marinus, with the miserable 
 remnant of the slaughtered Christians, fied to the neighboring heights of Alonte Titano, where he 
 gave himself up to prayer and penance. Ills reputation for wisdom and sanctity, as well as similar 
 persecutions, brought great numbers of his coUutr>iuen and of Italians to his place of retreat;, 
 and thus was laid the foumiation of the republic of Sau Marino, named after its founder, who also 
 gave his name to Monte Titano. Marinus at ended a council held at Kimini early in the fourth 
 century ; he is styled in its acts Diaconus, or deacon. He died in a good old age, towards the close- 
 of that century ; his body was buried on the mountain, and miracles were said to have been sviou'’^ht 
 at his tomb. Ills ashes are now preserved in the church of San .Vlariuo, the principal one of the 
 republic, where there is over the high altar a sracue of the s aint, holding in its hand the figure of a 
 mountain crowned with three towers,— the coat of arms of the republic. (See Clementiui; also 
 Slatteo Valli, hifra cit.) 
 
 3. For a full account of the republic of San Marino, see “ Dele’ Origine e governo della republica 
 di San Marino, di Matteo Valli, secretario e cittadiiio di esso republica.” Padova, 1633. .\lso 
 “ Clementini, Kaccolto i.storico della fondazione di Kimini,” 2 vols Ito. Kimini, 1617. When Cardinal 
 Alberoni, about a century ago, sought to reduce this little republic under the temporal sovereignty 
 of the Pope, the Pontiff disapproved of his design, and restored to the republic its ancient privileges 
 
146 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 of their own choice ; and the government of San Marino in particular, is 
 conducted on the most radically democratic principles. 
 
 The legislative body consists of the Council of Sixty, one half of whom 
 at least are, by law, to be chosen from the plebeian order; and of the 
 Arrengo, or general assembly, summoned under extraordinary circum¬ 
 stances, in which all the families of the republic are to be represented. The 
 executive is lodged in two capitanei regyenti, or governors, chosen every 
 six months, and holding jurisdiction, one in the city of San Marino, and the 
 other in the country; — so jealous are these old republicans of placing 
 po.wer in the hands of one man ! The judiciary department is managed by 
 a commissary, who is required by law to be a foreigner, — a native of some 
 other part of Italy, —in order that, in the discharge of his office, he may 
 be biassed by no undue prejudices resulting from family connections.* 
 When Addison visited the republic in 1700, he ‘‘scarcely met with any in 
 the place who had not a tincture of learning.^ He also saw the collection 
 of the laws of the republic, published in Latin, in one volume folio, under 
 the title: “ Statuta illustrissimae reipublicse Sancti Marini.” When 
 Napoleon, at the head of his victorious French troops, was in the neigh¬ 
 borhood of San Marino, in 1797, he paused, and sent a congratulatory dep¬ 
 utation to the republic, “which expressed the reverence felt by her young 
 sister, France, for so ancient and free a commonwealth, and offered, besides 
 an increase of territory, a present of four pieces of artillery.” The present 
 was gratefully accepted, but the other tempting offer was wisely declined ! 
 
 9. The monastic institute, as we have seen, laid the foundations of the 
 republic of San Marino in the fourth century; — it subsequently did more 
 for civil liberty, by furnishing the best models for free institutions. In the 
 beginning of the thirteenth century, arose the two religious orders of St. 
 Francis and St. Dominic, furnishing the Church, as a late eloquent writer’ 
 has well said, with its two greatest arms of poverty and eloquence. 
 
 The forms of government which these men established for their respective 
 orders, contained many elements of democracy. The general of the Fran¬ 
 ciscans was elected for four years, and that of the Dominicans for six 
 years.** The local superiors were also elected for a certain term of years ; 
 and in each society rules were made to prevent the too frequent election of 
 the same individual. The monks were ever the friends of the lower 
 
 1 An anecdote, current in Italy, will serve to show how justice is administered at San Marino. A 
 merchant of Venice visited the republic to collect a debt from one of its citizens, who bad tlelav ed or 
 declined payment. Ue was conducted to the chief justice, whom he found in a large vat, treading 
 out grapes for wine with his naked feet. He stated his case, without much hope of receiving pay¬ 
 ment. The justice immediately summoned the delinquent debtor, who acknowledged the debt, but 
 pleaded inability. The indignant judge however immediately decreed, that his house should be sold 
 to meet the demand. To prevent this, the citizen soon produced the amount of the debt, and the 
 Venitian returned home, well satisfied with his journey. Having afierwards witnes.sed the delays and 
 chicanery of the Venitian courts, he exclaimed : “ Vale piu un pistad’ uva di San Marino, che dieci 
 parruchoiii di Venetia! One grape-trader of San Marino is worth more than ten big-wigs (judges) 
 of Venice ! ” 
 
 2 See Addison’s “ Letters from Italy.” 3 La (lordaire, “ Apology for the Order of St. Dominic.” 
 
 4 This, at least, is the rule at present in the Domi nican order; originally it was different, the gen¬ 
 eral having been elected for life. The change, however, took place at an early period in the history 
 Dt the Order; we believe, in the thirteenth century, \fnder St. Raymond de Pennafort, who wu 
 general in 1238. 
 
ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 147 
 
 classes, and they did much to elevate their condition in society. Born 
 tliemselves in general among the poor, and having made a vow of poverty, 
 their sympathies were naturally with the poor. Mingling constantly with 
 the people, and entering into all their wants, their word and example exer¬ 
 cised a most humanizing influence on the rude state of society during the 
 middle ages. 
 
 10. If any doubt remain as to the favorable influence of Catholicity 
 3n civil liberty, it would be dispelled by the express teaching of the theo¬ 
 logians, writing in accordance with the principles and the spirit of the 
 Church. Not to extend this paper too much, we will confine ourselves to 
 the authority of the great St. Thomas Aquinas, who, as a theologian, has 
 perhaps had greater weight in the Catholic Church than any other man. 
 His testimony may also show us, what were the general sentiments of the 
 schoolmen in the thirteenth century, when he wrote. Speaking of the 
 origin of civil power and the objects of law, he lays down these principles: 
 
 The law, strictly speaking, is directed primarily and principally to the 
 common good: and to decree any thing for the common benefit, belongs 
 either to the whole body of the peopUyOr to some one acting in their place 
 He pronounces the following opinion as to the best form of government: 
 “ Wherefore the choice of rulers in any state or kingdom is best, when one 
 is chosen for his merit to preside over all, and under him are other rulers 
 chosen for their merit, and the government belongs to all, because the rulers 
 may be chosen from any class of society, and the choice is made by ally‘s 
 One would think that he is hearing a democrat of the modern stamp, and 
 yet it is a monk of the dark ages! Many other testimonies of similar import 
 might be cited, but these will suffice.’ 
 
 11. With these principles generally received, and with the other influ¬ 
 ences noticed above steadily acting on society, we cannot wonder at the 
 rapid development of the democratic principle in the thirteenth and follow¬ 
 ing centuries. Were the Catholic bishops and barons, who wrested Magna 
 Charta from the hands of the tyrant John, on the famous plain of Runny- 
 mede, in 1215, enemies of civil liberty? And yet, that great charter of 
 English rights, which secured trial by jury, fixed courts, taxation only with 
 the consent of the people, and habeas corpus, contained no new provisions; 
 it was but the revival of a charter one hundred and fifty years older, granted 
 by Edward the Confessor, and discovered in the archives of London, by 
 that great champion of English libei-ty. Cardinal Stephen Langion, 
 archbishop of Canterbury/ (See Note A., page 635.) 
 
 12. The good old Catholic times produced patriots and heroes, of whom 
 the present age might well be proud. William Wallace, defeated at Buscen- 
 neth, fell a martyr to the liberty of his native Scotland in 1305. Roberi 
 Bruce achieved what Wallace had bled for not in vain, — the independence 
 of his country. He won, in 1314, the decisive battle of Bannockburn, 
 
 1 Summa The<»logiae. 1 2. 1. Quaest. Art. iii, Ilesp. 2 Ibid. Quaest. cv. art. 1, 
 
 3 For a fuller exposition of what the leading Catholic divines have taught on the nature and limits 
 of civil government, see Balmes, sup cit. ch. xiix. seqq. 
 
 4 See ilurter's “ Life of Innocent III,’’ etc. vol ii, p. 686 
 
148 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY 
 
 whicli resulted in tlie expulsion of the Englisli invaders from Scotland. 
 Are the Hungarians, and Poles, and Spaniards, and French, wlio fought 
 for centuries the battles of European independence against the Saracens 
 and Turks, to be set down as enemies of freedom? Are the brave knights 
 of St. John, who so heroically devoted themselves for the liberty of 
 Europe at Rhodes and at Malta, also to be ranked with the enemies of 
 human rights ? 
 
 13. Who will stigmatize as lovers of despotism the brave heroes, Wil¬ 
 liam Tell, Furst, Werner, and Melchtal, who, at the head of four or five 
 hundred Swiss, fought the battle of Morgarten in 1307, and drove back 
 an invading army of twenty thousand Austrians ? And yet these brave 
 men, who laid the foundation of the Swiss Republic, were all Roman 
 Catholics ; and in nobly asserting the cause of freedom, they surely did 
 not act in opposition to their principles as Catholics. 
 
 14. And still, in the face of all these facts, and of many others which 
 might be alleged, we are to'be told that Catholicity is the friend of des¬ 
 potism, and the sworn enemy of republican government! And that, 
 forsooth, all our free institutions are to be ascribed to the Protestant 
 reformation ! If this be so, is it not a little strange that wherever 
 Protestantism appeared in Europe, and especially wherever it gained the 
 ascendency, the democratic principle was weakened, and the arm of 
 monarchy strengthened? Yet this fact is incontestable. Where now are 
 the liberties of Germany, established by her people, and recognized by 
 her emperors -and princes, in the middle ages ? What has become of the 
 great democratic principle so generally received during that period, that the 
 people are not to be taxed without their own consent? What has become 
 of the representative system, by which each city and province of the empiie 
 had a voice in the general diet? These have all vanished. The fate 
 of Germany is now decided, not by the voice of her once free people, 
 but by the swords and bayonets of her immense standing armies. 
 These constitute the ultima ratio assigned by her emperors and kings 
 for any laws they may choose to enact ! And it must be confessed 
 that this reason, if not altogether satisfactory, is at least conclusive. 
 Where are now the free cities of Germany, once so famous ? Alas ! 
 they have dwindled down to two or three, and these shorn of half their 
 honors! 
 
 ■ Whence this great change in her social condition ? Our vision must 
 be very dull indeed, not to perceive that it occurred in the sixteenth 
 century; and that the revolution, called the reformation, caused it in some 
 places, and occasioned it in others. The political excitement, and the 
 bloody wars to which that revolution gave rise, afforded an excellent 
 opportunity to the German princes to grasp at absolute power. Amidst 
 the ao'itations of society, they seized on the golden prize thus offered to 
 their ambition, and bore it off triumphantly ! And did the Protestants of 
 Germany resist these pretensions ? On the contrary they favored them. 
 Though they wore clamoiing for liberty, and struggling for emancipation 
 
ON CIVIL LIBERTY. 
 
 149 
 
 from what they were pleased to call a religious despotism, } et they tamely 
 yielded their political rights to the first despot who espoused, their cause, 
 and offered to protect them in their religious innovation ! They gave 
 themselves up, body and soul,— bound hand and foot,— to a real in order 
 to escape an imaginary despotism ! We confidently appeal to the whole 
 history of that period, to show that this is no exaggeration, and that the 
 picture is not even too highly colored. M. Guizot, a Protestant, and. a 
 historian of great weight, expressly asserts '■Hitat the emancipation of the 
 human mind, (by the reformation) and absolute monarchy triumphed sim~ 
 ultaneously throughout Europe} And if he had not admitted it, standing 
 monuments would fully attest the fact. Every Protestant kingdom on the 
 continent of Europe has been since the reformation, and is still, an absolute 
 diespotism ! Every one of them has an established religion, and recognizes 
 in the king absolute power, civil and ecclesiastical! Many of them, as 
 Prussia, for example, are military despotisms, in which every citizen is 
 bound to military service ! 
 
 The Protestant reformation is directly responsible for all this; for it 
 certainly caused all these political evils, wherever it gained the ascendency. 
 It indirectly occasioned political changes of a similar character in most 
 other countries of Europe. To preserve themselves from the social dis¬ 
 turbances, which the reformation had caused wherever it had made its 
 appearance, Catholic princes adopted rigid precautionary measures, and 
 their subjects, under the excitement of the times, willingly resigning a 
 portion of their liberties in order to enable their princes to ward oflF the 
 threatened evil, the Catholic .governments of Europe became, many of 
 , them, absolute monarchies. These influences contributed much to pro¬ 
 duce thp effects just named in the Catholic governments of Austria, 
 Fmnce, Spain, and Portugal. 
 
 In England, the i-eformation crushed the liberties of the people trans¬ 
 mitted to them by their Catholic ancestors, and embodied in the Catholic 
 Magna Charta. The tyrant Henry VIII. trampled with impunity on 
 almost every privilege secured by that instrument. Royal prerogative 
 swallowed up every other element of government, both civil and religious. 
 The king was every thing,—supreme in church and state; the parliament 
 and the people were nothing,—a mere cypher. This state of things con¬ 
 tinued, with the brief and troubled interval of Cromwell, or of the soi 
 distant “ commonwealth” excepted, until the revolution in 1688,—a period 
 of one hundred and fifty years. 
 
 And what did the revolution effect ? It did no more than restore to 
 England the provisions of her Catholic Magna Charta, which instrument, 
 during the three hundred years preceding the reformation, had been 
 renewed and extended at least thirty times.* The glorious revolution 
 indeed !! It did no more than repair the ravages committed by Protes¬ 
 tantism on the British constitution during the previous hundred and fifty 
 
 1 Ijectures on Civilization in Modern Europe, p. 300, et seq. Though he admits this fact, yet he 
 strangely enough, to show that Protestantism emancipated the human mind and originated 
 fre«> institutions 1 So much for modern eclecticism. 
 
 R2 
 
150 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICITY. 
 
 
 years, and to restore that constitution to its ancient Catholic integTity. It 
 did not even do this to the fullest extent; for it refused to grant protection 
 and the most unalienable civil privileges to the Catholic body, to whom 
 the British were indebted for the Magna Charta, and their glorious con¬ 
 stitution. Nor was this body emancipated from political slavery until 
 1 829 ,— one hundred and forty one years later; and then the act was passed 
 with a bad grace, nor was it full in its measure of justice,— the tithe system 
 and other intolerable evils still remaining unrepealed ! 
 
 15. We might bring the subject home to our own times and country, 
 and show that the Catholics of the colony of Maryland, were the hist to 
 proclaim universal liberty, civil and religious, in North America 
 tiiat in the war for independence with Protestant England, Catholic* 
 France came generously and eftectually to our assistance; that Irish 
 and American Catholics fought side by side with their Protestant 
 fellow-citizens in that eventful war;^ that the Maryland line which bled 
 so freely at Camden with the Catholic Baron Be Kalb, while Gates and his 
 Protestant militia were consulting their safety by flight, was composed to 
 a great extent of Catholic soldiers; that there was no Catholic traitor 
 during our revolution ; that the one who periled most in signing the De¬ 
 claration of Independence, and who was the last survivor of that noble 
 band of patriots, was the illustrious Catholic, Charles Carroll of Carrolton ; 
 that half the generals and officers of our revolution,— Lafayette, Pulaski, 
 Count de Grasse, Rochambeau, Be Kalb, Kosciusko, and many others, 
 were Catholics ;—and that the first commodore appointed by Washington 
 to form our infant navy was the Irish Catholic — Barry. These facts, 
 which are but a few of those which might be adduced, prove conclusively 
 that Catholicity is still, what she was in the middle ages, the steadfast friend 
 of free institutions.^ 
 
 To conclude: Can it be that Catholicity, which saved Europe from 
 barbarism and a foreign Mahommedan despotism,—which in every age 
 has been the advocate of free principles, and the mother of heroes and of 
 rej)ublics, -— which originated Magna Charta and laid the foundation of 
 liberty in every country in Europe,—and which in our own day and 
 country has evinced a similar spirit,— is the enemy of free principles ? 
 We must blot out the facts of history, before we can come to any sucli 
 conclusion ! If history is at all to be relied on, we must conclude, that 
 
 THE INLUENCE OF THE CaTHOLIC ChURCH HAS BEEN FAVORABLE TO CiVIL 
 
 Liberty. 
 
 1 See a Feries of Tery able articles in the Dublin Review, under the title, “ Arbitrary Bower, 
 Popery, Protestantism,”—republished in a duodecimo volume by Mr Fithian ; where this and many 
 similar facts are proved by incontestable evidence.— Dublin Review, Nos. xv, xviii. xix. 
 
 2 See Bancroft’s (Prototant) History of the United States, Vol. i. Colony of Maryland, 
 
 3 See a letter of General Washington to Charles Carroll of Carrolton and Bishop Carroll, written 
 in March, 1790; in which he bears honorable evidence to this fact, alleging it as a reason why 
 Catholics in this country should have equal rights with their Protestant fellow-citizens. 
 
 4 De Tocqueville, a good judge in such matrers, says ” that the Catholics constitute the most 
 democratic class of citizens in the United States.” .4nd to account for this fact, he enters hito a 
 cour.-;e of philosophic reasoning to show that this is a necessary result of Catholic principles.—Ho 
 wiocmcy in America, p. 281: New York edition, 1838. 
 
VIII. AGE OF POPE GREGORY VII. 
 
 THE DEPOSING POWER.* 
 
 Importance of the subject—Society s(ru>rgling into form—Hildebrand—Ilis cotemporaries—Histor¬ 
 ical portraits and parallels—Napoleon’s opinion of Gregory VII.—IIow the Pontiff has been attacked 
 by his enemies—And how defended by Voigt —The great idea of Gregory—His relations to society as 
 its spiritual head—A torrent of abuse stemmed—The question of investitures—Ancient mode of 
 nominating to bishoprics—Contest between the Popes and tiie emperors of Germany—Papal elect on 
 — A. vital question—St. Peter Damian—His relations to Gregory—Simony and disorder timong the 
 clergy—Hildebrand unanimously elected Pope—His earlier career—His experience, coolness, and 
 wisdom—Not exceedingly stern—His wonderful activity —His correspondence—His mor.il courage 
 —His temporal relations to society—Distracted state of Europe—Princes swearing fealty to the 
 Pope—His protectorate recognized and invoked—Gregory not ambitious—His long struggle with 
 Henry IV.—The Nero of the twelfth century—Otto of Nordlieim—Summary of the whole contest— 
 Moderation of Gregory—How and why the Pontiff declared Henry deposed—A stroke for liberty-- 
 Opinion of Voigt. 
 
 Gregory VII. was the first Roman Pontiff, who ever attempted to depose 
 a temporal prince. Hence his character, as well as that of his age, has 
 awakened much interest and elicited considerable historical inquiry. Men 
 have naturally sought to know why, and under what circumstances, he 
 maintained the claim to a power seemingly so extraordinary in one who was 
 the successor of the poor fisherman of Galilee. We will attempt to throw 
 some light upon this subject, with the aid of M. Voigt, the distinguished 
 biographer of the Pontiff, His testimony will be deemed unexcepLiouable 
 by the mass of Gregory's opponents; while, based as it is upon original 
 documents, carefully examined, it must have great weight with all 
 impartial men. 
 
 The age of Pope Gregory VII., was one of peculiar interest, crowded 
 with great and importani events. It was an age of transition. After the 
 civil convulsions which followed the subjugation of Europe by the north- 
 men in the fifth century, society, as if exhausted by over exertion, seems 
 to have settled down into a species of lethargy in the tenth century, reputed 
 by most writers the darkest and most dreary of all the period called the 
 middle ages. The eleventh century presents us the picture of society again 
 struggling into form. To attain this consistency, however, it was neces¬ 
 sary for it again to pass through the storm of revolution. Commotions 
 in society are sometimes as necessary for its moral health, as storms are 
 in nature for the purification of the atmosphere. 
 
 *llistoire du Pape Gregoire VII. et de son siecle, cTapres les monuments originaux. Par 
 J. Voigt, profess, a Tuniversit^ de Hall. Traduite de rAllemand, par M. I’Abbe 
 Jager. Paris, 1838; 2 vol. 8vo. Ilistori/ of Pope Gregory VII. and of his age^ from- 
 
 original documents. By J. Voigt, Professor at .the University of Hall. Translated from- 
 tiie German by the Abbe Jager. Paris, 1838. 2 vols. 8vo 
 
 151 
 
152 
 
 age of pope GREGORY VII. 
 
 Whoever will take the trouble to compare the tenth with the twelfth 
 centiiiy, must be convinced that, during the intervening period, a greal 
 man has passed, and that his passage has been marked by great events 
 That great man was Hildebrand, afterwards Gregory VII.; and the great 
 events ale those wdiicli M. Voigt so graphically describes in his history. 
 Tliis embraces the period of thirty-five years, from the birth of the emperor 
 Henry IV. in 1050, to the death of Gregory in 1085. 
 
 M. Voigt could not have chosen a more interesting or important subject, 
 and few could have done it greater justice. His history is not confined tc 
 Gregory. Along with him, he portrays the various remarkable personages 
 who flourished at the same time, and with most of whom the Pontiff was 
 thrown into frequent contact. Among these, the chief is Henry IV., of 
 Germany, the exact antithesis of Gregory in all things, infamous for every 
 thing for which he was famous. He and all the others appear before us 
 like finished portraits from a master hand ; —their features and form so 
 clearly marked, that they remain fixed in the memory, and will ever after¬ 
 wards be recognized as old acquaintances. 
 
 Great men often appear in groups, like the stars in heaven ; and-, among 
 the distinguished cotemporaines of Gregory, Ave may mention St. Peter 
 Damian, St. Anselm, bishop of Lucca, and Desiderius, abbot of Monte 
 Cassino, in Italy, St. Hugh of Ciuni, and Cardinal Hugh de Die, in France; 
 Lanfranc, arqjibishop of Canterbury, and William the Conqueror, in Eng¬ 
 land ; and Anno of Cologne, Rodolph, duke of Suabia, and Otto of 
 Nordheim, in Germany. In the south of Italy, the famous Chevalier 
 Robert Guiscard is seen extending the Norman power almost as much as 
 William the Conqueror extends it in England ; and the attentive reader will 
 not fail to remark a great similarity in the characters and fortunes of these 
 two fierce, but chivalrous Norman chieftains. He will also detect in the 
 life, position in relation to Henry IV., splendid designs, varied fortunes, 
 and remarkable death of the great Anno, archbishop of Cologne, many 
 traits common to him with the great Cardinal Wolsey of England ; tliough 
 if the comparison be strictly carried out, the palm Avill, perhaps, be awarded 
 to Anno. Had Henry IV. listened to his counsels, and not been guided too 
 much by the ambitious Adalbert, bishop of Bremen, and by others, the 
 history of the eleventh century would have been very different. If the 
 jeader be fond of drawing parallels, he may find many things in the life, 
 ■character and varied adventures of the great Otto of Nordheim,. to remind 
 him of that pink of medijeval chivalry, Richard Coeur de Lion. 
 
 Finally, in the excellent Empress Agnes, the mother of Henry IV., he 
 will discover the most estimable traits of character; and in the famous 
 Matilda of Tuscany, the particular friend of Gregory, he will find all the 
 .qualities Avhich constitute a great and good prijicess. She combined, in a 
 iremarkable degree, the coolness, firmness, and zeal of Gregory, witli the 
 warlike talents and impetuous bravery' of Otto of Nordheim. All these 
 
 1 S« e A'oigt, (vol. ii. p. 436.) for a curious instance of her skill iti arms, when, at the head of her 
 troops, she surprised and defeated lleury's army in Lombardy. 
 
THE DEPOSING POWER. 
 
 153 
 
 characters reappear under the pen of M. Voigt, fresh, and, as it were, 
 instinct with life ; and it requires but little exertion of fancy, to behold thera 
 again acting over before us their respective parts in history, Gregory VII. 
 being tlie great master spirit and actor, whose influence is felt by them all. 
 Kcav men' perhaps, have been more differently judged by their cotempo¬ 
 raries, and by posterity, than this illustrious Pontiff. That he was a great 
 man, with transcendent genius, and that he did great things, all readily 
 admit; and Napoleon, an excellent judge of human greatness, showed his 
 ‘discrimination when lie said; “If I were not Napoleon, I would wish 
 to be Gregory VII.!’’ By his enemies, he has been represented as an 
 ambitious man, who aimed at universal dominion, both civil and ecclesias¬ 
 tical, reckless of the means for attaining his object. Some Catholics have 
 thought, that he pushed the claims of his see too far. The Church has 
 erected altars to his memory, as to one of the most devoted champions of 
 her liberty and rights, and one of the greatest promoters of stainless purity 
 among her clergy. 
 
 It is a singular stroke of divine Providence, that perhaps the best apology 
 for the course thus pursued by the Church, comes to us from a Protestant 
 pen, and from that Germany too, with which Gregory sustained so long 
 and so arduous a struggle. M. Voigt has defended him, not, as he had 
 been attacked, by mere declamation, but by the evidence of facts drawn 
 from CO temporary writers, such as Lambert, Paul Bernried, Domnizo, 
 Berthold of Constance, Leo Ostiensis, Hermann, Fiorentini, Aventin, Car¬ 
 dinal Arago, and others. He has thoroughly sifted the testimony of these 
 authors, and presented the facts in chronological order, yet woven into a 
 narrative almost as interesting as any work of fiction. Though a Protestant, 
 yet he is so just and moderate, and withal so accurate, that the severe 
 critic, the Abbe Jager, who translated his work into French, found little 
 of importance to correct, and still less to add to the narrative ; and besides 
 a remarkably well written, well reasoned, and highly wrought introductory 
 essay of one hundred pages, his notes are chiefly valuable, as exhibiting 
 the original text where the historian had contented himself with a simple 
 reference. The manner of M. Voigt is very similar to that of the great 
 English historian, Lingard, embracing many facts and little theory ; while 
 his style, though less terse and condensed, is perhaps more lively, and his 
 narrative more detailed and interesting. 
 
 .It is not our purpose to write a lengthy review of M. Voigt’s work, which 
 we would fain hope soon to see in an English dress. We wish merely to 
 direct attention to the new light, which so unexceptionable a witness has 
 slied upon the character and actions of a man, than whom few have been 
 less known, and more misrepresented. 
 
 Gregory had to sustain a two-fold relation to the world : the one 
 spiritual, to the Church, of which he was the visible head; the other tem¬ 
 poral, to civil society, in the framework of which he was an important 
 part. Our object is to show, from the facts which M. Voigt alleges and 
 •proves, that, in both these capacities, his influence was highly beneficial; 
 
 
154 
 
 AGE OF POPE GREGORY VII. 
 
 while his motives were of the purest and most exalted nature. His great 
 idea was, to purify the church, and through its agency to reform 
 AND CIVILIZE SOCIETY : and his acts were just such as the condition of the 
 times required for the attainment of these two great purposes. The chief 
 fault of those who have censured him has been, that they have judged his 
 conduct, not by the circumstances of his own time and the jurisprudence 
 which then obtained, but by the maxims and ideas of the present day,—- 
 than which nothing could be more unjust. 
 
 I. Our blessed Redeemer foretold' that scandals should come; and even * 
 under His own eyes, and in the college of apostles, though taught imme¬ 
 diately by Himself, a most grievous scandal was given, by that traitorous 
 disciple who sold his divine Master. It was not then to be expected, that 
 the members of the church, even the ministers of her altars, should be all 
 of them stainless. It was not promised that the gates of hell should not 
 rage against the Church, but that they should not ‘prevail? The storm 
 was to howl fiercely around the ship of the Church, while pursuing her 
 voyage over the stormy ocean of life; but in the hour of her greatest peril, 
 wdien every thing would threaten shipwreck, and tlie timid would exclaim: 
 ‘‘Lord, save us, we perish,” — Jesus would arise from his apparent 
 slumber, extend his hand over the boiling waves, command the winds and 
 the sea, and suddenly there should come a great calm.^ 
 
 This miracle has been renewed in all the great emergencies of the 
 Church. “ She may be attacked, she cannot be conquered.” Persecution 
 has tried her, and she came out fresher and better than ever. Heresy has 
 assailed her on all sides, and yet she has gained the victory. At the 
 period of which we are speaking, a flood of immorality broke in upon her, 
 penetrating even within the sacred chancel of her sanctuary ; and yet from 
 this new and most terrible ordeal she was destined likewise to come out, 
 unharmed and unsullied. Perhaps the preservation of the Church, under 
 such circumstances, is a greater miracle of God’s providence than any 
 other recorded in her annals. 
 
 Gregory VII. was the chief instrument employed by God for the cor¬ 
 rection of the crying moral evils of his age. His vast mind immediately 
 perceived the source from which this torrent of disorders flowed; and 
 he directed all his gigantic efforts for nearly thirty-six years, towards 
 drying it up. The Church had unworthy ministers, and she had to weep 
 over many immoralities, even at the foot of her altars, precisely because 
 slie had been enslaved by the princes of the earth,—her canons contemned, 
 her liberties crushed, and her very sanctuaries sacrilegiously invaded, by 
 those who were clothed with the civil power. 
 
 The right of investiture, claimed chiefly by the emperors of Germany, 
 was the principal cause of all these evils of the Church. The emperors, 
 having richly endowed the bishoprics and abbeys, claimed the right of 
 nominating the incumbent, and of investing the subject thus appointed 
 with the insignia of his office. The new incumbent took an oath of fealty, 
 
 1 Matt, xviii 2 Matt xvi. 3 Matt, viii, 25, 26. 
 
 
r 
 
 THE DEPOSING POWER. 155 
 
 which required, among other things, that he should join the standard of 
 his sovereign with his armed retainers, whenever called on to do so. In 
 the appointment to bishoprics, more regard was often had to birth and 
 military talents, than to the virtues and learning required by the canons. 
 What was still worse, these preferments were often purchased by money, 
 and the most unworthy men were thus thrust into the holy places. Under 
 the wicked and dissolute Henry IV., simony, and consequent immorality, 
 became the order of the day in Germany and northern Italy, where his 
 power in this matter was the more baneful, because it was less questioned. 
 The Church was thus disgraced with wicked ministers, because the 
 princes of the world had thrust them on her. 
 
 The right of investiture was manifestly an usurpation of the German 
 emperors and other princes,—at least in the sense in which it was under¬ 
 stood and carried out by them. It was viewed not only by Gregory, but 
 by many other holy men of the time,—such as St. Anselm of Luca,* and 
 St. Peter Damian,**—as the chief cause of all the evils which they so much 
 deplored. It was in direct opposition to the enactments of the ancidiit 
 canons regarding the election of bishops. These. secured to the Church 
 the right of choosing her own ministers, as well as perfect freedom in the 
 exercise of that right. If the people often co-operated in the election of 
 bishops, during the first centuries, it was more as witnesses of the good 
 qualities of the candidate, than as electors ; and perhaps one cause of the 
 modification of discipline in this respect was the well grounded fear, that 
 when the people would become more numerous, and perhaps less pious, 
 popular clamor might impair the liberty of election. 
 
 Princes never had the right of nomination to bishoprics, without the 
 consent and concurrence of the Church. The thirtieth canon of those 
 called the Apostolic,— believed by the learned to exhibit pretty accurately 
 the discipline of the three first centuries of the Church,— pronounces 
 sentence of deposition against bishops who receive their sees from princes. 
 The fourth canon of the great council of Nice, held in 325, regulates the 
 manner of appointing bishops by the prelates of the province, or by at 
 least three of them ; without even alluding to any right of the people or of 
 princes in the matter.^ The twenty-second canon of the eighth general 
 council, held at Constantinople in 870, goes still farther, and pronounces 
 an anathema against any lay prince, who would interfere in the “ election 
 or promotion of any patriarch, metropolitan, or bishop, so as to prevent its 
 canonical freedom.”'* Many other authorities could be produced, to prove 
 that the claim set up by the princes of the eleventh century, not only had 
 no sanction from the Church, but was in the very face of all its rights 
 and laws. By being liberal to the Church, temporal princes acquired no right 
 to enslave it, and to introduce into its bosom the feudal, on the ruins of 
 the canon law. 
 
 Yet this was precisely what was attempted to be done ; and for resist- 
 
 1 Sermon, ii. 2 Kp. ii, et passim 3 Labbci. Concil. tom. ii, p. 30. 
 
 4 Id. Tom. viii p. 1141. 
 
156 
 
 AGE, OF POPE GREGORY VII. 
 
 ing tliis usurpation and contending strongly until death for the liberty of, 
 the Church, Gregory has sustained so much obloquy ! Gould he have 
 done otherwise, without betraying his duty, and, to use his own strong 
 language, “by satisfying the caprices of princes, being hurled with them 
 into the abyss ?” ‘ So far was this pretended right of investiture carried, 
 that the German emperors even asserted it in regard to the Roman Pontiff 
 himself, thereby seeking to crush the liberty of the Church in its head,—• 
 in the only one able effectually to resist the ever encroacliing usurpation. 
 
 The emperors had more than once attempted to elect and depose Popes 
 at will ; but they had always met with powerful resistance from the 
 Church, and never succeeded in causing more than temporary confusion. 
 Sometimes called to the eternal city, as its natural guardians, to quell 
 popular insurrection, or to assert the liberty of the Church, they often 
 went beyond the mere office of protection, and sought to rule in spiritual, 
 as well as in temporal matters. In one of his journeys to Rome (after the 
 middle of the tenth century,) Otho the Great, emperor of Germany, with 
 the aid of the antipope—styled Leo whom he had himself setup,—• 
 
 had a decree or canon passed, by which the emperor’s right to interpose 
 in the election of the Pope was recognized ; and though the provisions of 
 this law were annulled by Henry II., in the beginning of the following 
 century, they were renewed by Conrad II., and they subsequently became 
 the cause of incalculable evils to the Church. In consequence of this 
 innovation on ancient law, there were three claimants to the papal chair at 
 one time ; and Henry III., the father of Henry IV., paid a visit to Rome, 
 and succeeded in suppressing the schism, without, however, giving up 
 the pretended privilege from which this and other evils had sprung. 
 
 It required a man of the iron nerve of Gregory VII. to wrest from the 
 hands of the German emperors, what they would not have willingly resigned! 
 A.nd how wisely and how etfectually he did it, M. Voigt fully informs us, 
 and we shall have occasion to show more at length hereafter. Those 
 writers who would fain persuade their readers that the controversy about 
 investitures was one of mere form, show only their profound ignorance of 
 history. It was a vital question, —one of liberty or slavery for the Church. 
 
 So long as kings and princes exercised this pretended right, can we 
 wonder at the dreadful evils which St. Peter Damian so pathetically laments? 
 Can we be astonished, that this good man should weep, like another Jere¬ 
 miah, over the calamities of God’s people, and the desecration of his holy 
 places ; or that, reposing near the sanctuary which he so much loved, he 
 should shed tears over its desolation and abandonment, while the courts of 
 princes were thronged with a. worldly minded clergy?^ Can we wonder, 
 that when he had exhausted all the resources of prose, he resorted to poetry, 
 and wept in plaintive numbers over the evils of his day? And that finally, 
 disgusted with a world which he did not love, and which he despaired to 
 be able to reform, he fled to solitude, and devoted himself entirely to 
 prayer ? 
 
 1 Ep. i, 11. 
 
 2 Ep. i, 15. 
 
THE DEPOSING POWER. 
 
 157 
 
 M. Voigt ascribes Damian’s retirement to a feeling of envy at Hilde¬ 
 brand’s superiority. But there is little foundation for this assertion. The 
 expressions of Damian, in which he calls Hildebrand “his holy adversary, 
 and “ his hostile friend,”^ and others of the same kind, only show some 
 diversity of opinion and temperament between the two illustrious men; but 
 they do not prove tliat tliere existed any jealousy. Hildebrand opposed 
 his retiring, but Pope Alexander II. permitted it, on condition that Damian 
 would come forth again, whenever the Church should need his services. 
 
 Hildebrand was cool and deliberate, Damian was ardent and enthusi¬ 
 astic ; but they both labored together for the same glorious object, — the 
 extirpation of simony and incontinence among the clergy, and the stricter 
 observance of the ancient canons. And that they were always good friends, 
 may be gathered from a letter written by Damian from solitude, in which, 
 complaining that Hildebrand had not written to him oftener, he speaks of 
 the manner in which he had ever co-operated with him: “ in all his (Hilde¬ 
 brand’s) struggles and victories, he (Damian) had thrown himself in, not as 
 a mere fellow soldier or follower, but as a thunder-bolt,” an expression 
 which shows the impetuosity of his zeal.^ 
 
 There is no doubt, that the lano-uao-e of St. Peter Damian should be re- 
 ceived with some allowance; but yet it appears certain, that the evils deplored 
 by him were both widely spread and inveterate. How deeply seated was the 
 malady, may be gathered from the long and obstinate resistance of the clergy 
 of Milan and Lombardy to the proposed reformation; from the repeated 
 tumults in Milan consequent upon the zealous efforts made by the holy 
 deacon Arialdo, and by the pious chevaliers Landulph and Herlembaud, to 
 enforce the canons of the Church ; from the tragical death of Arialdo, so 
 graphically related by M. Voigt;'* from the outrages which, in 1074, dis¬ 
 graced the synod of Erfurt, over which Sigefrid, archbishop of Mayence 
 presided, as legate of the Pope, and where he so strenuously sought to extir¬ 
 pate abuses; from tlie elections of the two antipopes, Cadolous and Guibert, 
 and the awful troubles brought upon Rome and the Church by their wicked 
 ambition : in a word, from the whole life of Gregory VII., which was one 
 continued struggle against vice and immorality seated in high places. 
 All these scandals and troubles were the work of a faction, it is true, but 
 of a strong and powerful facticfn, aided and urged on by some of the greatest 
 princes of Europe, among whom Henry IV. of Germany, and Philip I. of 
 Prance were the most conspicuous. 
 
 Such was the sad state of things in the Church, when Hildebrand was 
 unanimously elected Pope by the clergy and people of Rome, in 1073. He 
 was the very man who was best calculated to meet the emergency. He 
 brought to the pontiffcal chair an experience of twenty-four years, during 
 which he had been actively employed in various important affairs by 
 previous Pontiffs. From the pontificate of the holy Pope Leo IX. (A. D. 
 
 1 “ Sanctus satanas mens ” 2 “ Ilostilis amicus meus ” 
 
 3 Ep. ii. &. “ Certaiiiiijilius et victoriis, ego me non commilit.onem seu pedissequum, sed quasi 
 
 fulmeu injeci.” 4 Vol. 1, p. 153. 
 
 s 
 
158 
 
 AGE OE POPE GREGORY VII. 
 
 1049), who had made him archdeacon of the Roman Church, to the day 
 of his own election, he was the right arm of the Church’s defense. So 
 great was the confidence entertained in his judgment, that St. Peter Damian,' 
 says, that he himself followed his opinions as he would the canons of the 
 Church. It was he who had prompted Bruno, bishop of Toul, nominated 
 Pope by Henry IV., to take off the insignia of the papacy at the monastery 
 of Clun}^, to walk as a pilgrim to Rome, and not to accept of the tiara, 
 until he should be canonically elected by the clei-gy and people of that 
 city. This was his first step towards the emancipation of the Church. 
 He it was who advised, and perhaps even penned the famous canon^ 
 of the Roman council, held under Nicholas II., in 1059, which fixed the 
 mode of electing the sovereign Pontiff by the cardinals, with the consent 
 of the people, and made the approval by the emperor a mere personal 
 privilege to belong to those emperors only, to whom it would be specially 
 granted by the Pope.^ 
 
 Having brought to the pontificate so much wisdom, learned from expe¬ 
 rience, he employed it all in the government of the Church. He undertook 
 nothing rashly. He was as cool and deliberate in taking his measures, as 
 he was firm and persevering in carrying them out. All his efforts for the 
 extinction of simony and incontinence among the clergy, and every stage 
 of his struggle with Henry IV., of Germany, evidence his coolness and 
 wisdom. He was consistent throughout. Every thing tended to the 
 carrying out of his great plan, — to secure the freedom of the Church, 
 and then to enforce its ancient canons. He steadily pursued this darling 
 object for nearly thirty-six years. He was too clearly convinced of the 
 soundness of his principles, and of the justice of his cause, ever to waver 
 or falter in his course for one moment. 
 
 Yet he was not excessively stern, as many are inclined to believe. He 
 had a tender and susceptible heart, sometimes filled “with an immensity of 
 joy,”^ and anon, “straitened with the most cruel grief.”^ His conduct 
 towards Henry IV., when the latter humbly sued for reconciliation with 
 the Church at the castle of Canossa, is not an exception to his general char¬ 
 acter in this respect. He indeed treated Henry with some rigor, because 
 he had too much reason to doubt the sincerity of the young king’s repent¬ 
 ance, and the event furnished too sad a proof of his forecast. Yet it must 
 be borne in mind, that, though Henry immediately after broke all his 
 solemn oaths, Gregory abstained for more than three years from renewing 
 the excommunication, though repeatedly urged to do so. And when he did 
 renew it, it was with the greatest reluctance. 
 
 He was severe towards the obstinate, but at the first sign of repentance, 
 his heart melted with sympathy. His kind treatment of Berengarius, who 
 recanted his errors in the synod of Rome in 1079, is a well known evidence 
 of this. He even offered to pardon the wicked antipope Guibert of Ra- 
 
 1 Ep. ii, 8. • 2 Labb. Tom. ix, p. 1103. 
 
 3 It is one evidence of the great genius and wisdom of Gregory VII. that tiie requirements of this 
 canon are followed, with but few modifications, to this day, in the election of the Pope. 
 
 4 Gaudii repleti immensitate, Ep. i, 40. 5 Circumvallat me dolor immanis, Epp. ii, 49. 
 

 THE DEPOSING POWER. lo9 
 
 • 
 
 venna, in case he would repentand he repeatedly proffered to receive 
 Henry himself again into the Cluirch, even after all his enormities, if he 
 would but repent and repair the enormous scandals he had given.^ He 
 himself informs us, that he was accused of too much leniency,^ and Car¬ 
 dinal Hugh de Die, his legate in France, complained of the facility with 
 which he absolved those ecclesiastics who had been excommunicated in 
 French councils/ 
 
 His activity was prodigious. By means of his legates he was every 
 where actively engaged, by means of councils both provincial and national, 
 in reforming abuses, and restoring ecclesiastical discipline. His vast mind 
 grasped the whole world, and yet entered every where into the most 
 minute details ! He has left nine books of letters written to every class 
 of persons, from the prince on his throne, to the monk in his cell. His 
 penetrating eye reached even Africa, where the few Christians who were 
 then left, were trampled under foot by the Moors.® He was very solicitous 
 about the reunion of the Greek with the Latin Church. He was the 
 first to conceive the project of a crusade, one great object of which 
 was to aid the struggling Christians of the east, and to heal the Greek 
 schism. 
 
 This conception alone would show the vastness of his mind. He made 
 two efforts to arouse Europe to a sense of its importance ; — but Europe 
 was not yet prepared to throw herself on Asia. Hungary, Bohemia, 
 Russia, Denmark, and Spain were all sharers in his pastoral solicitude. 
 He seemed to attend to each thing, as though he had nothing else to do ; 
 and even when beset by the greatest difficulties, he relaxed in nothing his 
 ceaseless labors for the general good of the Church. He celebrated in 
 Rome no less than eight councils, all of which were very numerously 
 attended. 
 
 His letters exhibit perhaps the best portrait of his mind and heart. 
 ‘His style is similar to that of St. Gregory the Great, whom he greatly 
 admired. Those who accuse him of worldly ambition have either not 
 read, or have not understood his correspondence. It all breathes far 
 higher motives, and a spirit not of this world. M. Voigt has exhibited 
 a condensed analysis of his principles and maxims as extracted from his 
 letters ; which analysis evinces great industry, and a thorough acquaintance 
 with the subject.® 
 
 But the quality which most distinguished Gregory was his moral 
 courage. No dangers appalled him ; no obstacles or difficulties deterred 
 him from doing what was right. His soul grew with the events which it 
 had to encounter. “The most fearful outbreaks of regal or popular 
 displeasure could not move his fixed purpose. He had planted himself 
 
 1 Ep. V, 13. 
 
 2 Cardinal Arago gives us Gregory’s reply to the Romans, when pressed by Henry’s besieging army 
 they besought the Pontiff to absolve him. Gregory offered to do it, but only on the condition aboY 
 named. Voigt, vol. ii, p. 416. 
 
 3 Ep. i, 77. 4 Voigt, vol. ii, p. 293. 6 Ep. i, 22,23. See Voigt, vol. i, p. 35. 
 
 6 North American Review, for July, 1845. 
 
160 
 
 AGE OF POPE GREGORY VII. 
 
 on eternal truth, and the wind and the rain might beat upon, but they 
 could never stir him.” Who will not admire the calm composure which 
 he manifested, when he was seized on Christmas-night, at the very altar, 
 by an armed band of assassins led on by Cencius ; when he was cruelly 
 beaten,— his hair plucked out, his pontifical robes torn off, and himself 
 dragged off a prisoner to their leader’s castle ? Who will not admire the 
 forbearance which requited this outrage, with so effectual an interposition, 
 as screened its chief perpetrator from the effects of popular indignation ? 
 Who will not be struck by the noble courage manifested by him, in the 
 last council he held in Rome, in 1083, when, beset on all sides with 
 difficulties innumerable,— with Henry’s victorious troops threatening 
 Rome,— he arose in the council, and, with the face “more of an angel 
 than of a man,” ‘ spoke with an eloquence so stirring, as to move all who 
 were present even unto tears ! This noble courage was his great ruling 
 feeling, strong even in death ; and the memorable words, which "were the 
 last he uttered before he expired, an exile at Salerno,^ — “ I have loved 
 justice, and hated iniquity, and therefore I die in exile,”—contribute 
 much to a'ive us an insio-ht into his character. 
 
 II. Such were the qualities of Gregory ; such the difficulties he had to 
 contend with in fulfilling the duties growing out of his spiritual relations 
 to the church. He had to encounter obstacles yet more fearful, in his 
 temporal relations to civil society. He could not expect to carry out his 
 favorite plan of reformation, without being thwarted at every step by the 
 princes of the earth. Besides the pernicious influence of their example, 
 their claims in regard to investiture were, as we have seen, openly at war 
 with the liberties, and subversive of the dearest interests of the Church. 
 Gregory saw fully the difficulty of his position. He perceived the storm 
 which was gathering, and he was prepared to endure its most merciless 
 peltings. He quailed not, either in the anticipation, or when the fearful 
 reality more than justified his worst forebodings.^ ' 
 
 The charges brought against him by his enemies are many, but they 
 may be reduced to two principal heads. 
 
 1. He is accused of ambition, in seeking to make the kings of Hungary, 
 Dalmatia, Sardinia, Spain, and England take the oath of fealty to the holy 
 see : and he is charo-ed with aimino- at universal dominion in civil as well 
 
 O O , 
 
 as in. ecclesiastical matters. 2. He is greatly blamed for having attempted 
 to depose Henry IV., emperor of Germany. 
 
 We will endeavor briefly to meet both these accusations ; and also to 
 prove that, in his relations to princes, his powerful influence was highly 
 beneficial to civil society. 
 
 1. All the writers of the eleventh century paint Europe as being in a 
 most distracted condition. England was passing through a revolution 
 
 1 Sfeo Labb. Concil tom. x, p. 402 “Ore magis angelico quam humano.” 
 
 2 Dilexi justitiain, odi iiiiqnitatem ; ideo morior in exilio. — Paul liernried c. 110. 
 
 3 Speaking of Henry (Kp. i, 11), he uses this remarkable language : Et certe tutius esfc defendendo 
 veritatem pro sui ipsius salute adusque sanguinem nostrum .sibi resistere, quam ad explendam "jus 
 Toluutateiu iuiquitati conseutiendo secum, quod absit ad iuteritum ruere. 
 
THE DEPOSING POWER. 
 
 161 
 
 under William the Conqueror, and the south of Iialy was also being 
 revolutionized by Robert Guiscard; while Spain was struggling with tho 
 Moors, and Germany was torn by the most fierce civil wars between 
 Henry IV., and the princes of the empire. France was not free from 
 internal troubles, while its southern frontier was threatened by the 
 Saracens ; and in the east, Constantinople was tottering to its fall, and the 
 rising dynasty of the Turks menaced with extermination the Christian 
 name, in places where it had been once so illustrious. In civil society 
 every thing was in a state of disorder ; *the laws were trampled under foot 
 with impunity ; and might and right were viewed as almost synonymous 
 terms. The weak were oppressed by the strong; and the feudal system, 
 which had just obtained a firm foothold in Europe, was bringing forth its 
 bitter first fruits — of anarchy, petty civil wars, and bloodshed. St. Peter 
 Damian ‘ draws a graphic picture of the manner in which the feudal 
 chieftains robbed one another, and then recklessly “ set fire to the cottage 
 of the poor laborer.” And Gregory VII., in many of his epistles, weeps 
 over the murders and confusion of his time, calling it appropriately “ the 
 
 AGE OF IRON.” 
 
 In this distracted condition of things, only one power was universally 
 acknowledged and respected — that of the Church, and of its visible head, 
 the Sovereign Pontiff. And we are not to be surprised at seeing princes 
 often invoking this power whenever they got into difficulties with their 
 subjects, or with one another. Nor was this always a mere mark of 
 respect to the holy see — it was oftener a prudential measure for their own 
 security. When, by taking the oath of fealty to the Pope, they became 
 the feudal subjects of the holy see, they had a right to expect from it 
 protection against foreign invasion of their kingdom or domestic usurpation 
 of their throne. Thus, in return for a fealty, which included chiefly 
 spiritual obedience to the Pope, with a very small annual offering to the 
 papal treasury, they often received from the holy see the most substantial 
 favors. Any one who recklessly invaded a state thus placed under the 
 
 protection of St. Peter,” after having been admonished to desist, 
 incurred, if he persisted, the sentence of excommunication. 
 
 Such being the case, we are not astonished that kings and princes in 
 those troubled times often placed their crowns at the Pontiff’s feet. Thus 
 Demetrius, king of Russia, sent his son all the way to Rome to implore ^ 
 Pope Gregory VII., to receive his kingdom as a fief of the holy see ; and 
 Gregory in his answer,^ seems to grant his request with some reluctance, 
 and requires of him what was usually required in such cases, that he 
 should promise to assist his liege sovereign, (the holy see) ” in all things 
 just” Many kings in dying left their kingdoms under the protection of 
 the Pope ; and whenever a powerful baron or neighboring prince sought 
 to violate this testamentary disposition, to the prejudice of the infant heir, 
 the Pope interposed, as in the case of Vezelin,'' who attempted to usurp the 
 
 1 Ep. i, 15, supra cit. 
 
 8 Ibid. 
 
 S2 
 
 14 
 
 2 “ Devoti.s precibu.s.” (Kp. ii,74.) 
 4 See St. Uregory, VII. Ep, Tii, 4. 
 
162 
 
 AGE OF POPE GREGORY VII. 
 
 llirone of Dalmatia. Thus also Henry III., left his infant son Henry IV., 
 under the guardianship of his widow, the empress Agnes, and of Pope 
 Victor II. 
 
 It is not necessary to multiply facts to prove that one great feature of 
 medieval jurisprudence was the express or tacit acknowledgment of a 
 kind of universal protectorate in the Roman Pontiff. We find even the 
 fierce Robert Guiscard bowing down and taking the oath of fealty to the 
 holy see. It is proper however to observe here, once for all, that the oath 
 of feudal vassalage did not imply unlimited obedience — much less did it 
 enforce a slavish submission in all thino^s to the will of the lieo-e lord. 
 Feudal allegiance was very different from that of modern times. The 
 former was peculiar to the middle ages, and its duties were few and clearly 
 marked, requiring at the same time as a condition sine qua non, the 
 compliance with certain correlative duties on the part of him to whom the 
 oath was taken. 
 
 Gregory could not hope to carry out his plan for reforming the Church, 
 without the co-operation of temporal princes. From many of them he had 
 reason to expect the most determined opposition. Hence, it is not at all 
 surprising, that, intent upon one great idea, he sought, from the very 
 commencement of his pontificate, to rally around him the princes of the 
 •earth. This will explain to us his course of conduct in regard to Dalmatia, 
 Hungary, Sardinia, and part of Spain, which, in various letters, he souglit 
 to prove, to have been in former times feudal dependencies of the holy 
 see. We read of no resistance to his claims in any of these countries, 
 which proves that they were well founded, and that the documents he 
 alleged where genuine. This should put to shame those maligners of the 
 sainted Pontiff, who would fain persuade us, that he forged documents to 
 suit his own purposes! ! To prove, that the princes and people of the 
 middle ages were not advocates of passive obedience, even to the Pope, 
 particularly where temporal matters were concerned, we may adduce the 
 refusal by William the Conqueror, to take tlie oath of fealty to Gregory. 
 His answer to the Pontiff is brief, blunt, and characteristic of the Norman : 
 yet even he, while positively refusing to take the oath, says nothing in his 
 answer to impugn the motives of Gregory.' He had been the early 
 -favorite of Gregory, who had extolled him as a model of princes ; ^ and on 
 his refusal to take the oath, the Pontiff in his letter to his Eno-lish leo-ate 
 Humbert, only complains of the bluntness of the English monarch, and of 
 his refusal to suffer the English bishops to visit Rome. This last fact will 
 peibaps explain to us liis motive for endeavoring to induce William to take 
 tlie oath. 
 
 Tfiose who would charge Gregory with motives of mere worldly 
 ambition, have not learned the first elements of his character. Had 
 worldly grandeur been his object, why did he not obtain it, as he certainly 
 •could have done ? Why did he not doff his humble and coarse apparel, 
 and clothe himself in the “ soft garments of kings ? ” Why did he not 
 
 1 S«« bifl answer tx the Pontiff in Voi^t, vol. ii, p. 330, note. 2 See Voigt, vol. i, p. 425. 
 
THE DEPOSING POWER. 
 
 16S 
 
 keep up a splendid court, and live luxuriously in the midst of earthly 
 pomp and display ? Why did he not die a great temporal prince, instead 
 of a poor exile at Salerno ? Ambition, forsooth ! Nothing was more 
 foreign from his mind and heart than ambition. All his letters breathe a 
 higher spirit; all his acts imply much higher motives. He was not a 
 man to swerve one iota from the plain path of duty, for all the kingdoms 
 of the world! “I would rather,” says he, “undergo death for your 
 salvation, than obtain the whole world, to your spiritual ruin. For I 
 
 fear God, and therefore value but little the pride and pleasures of the 
 world.* 
 
 2. Much has been written of the Pontifl’’s long and painful struggle with 
 Henry IV. of Germany; but those who have taken occasion from it to 
 cast all the blame on Gregory, betray great ignorance of the history of 
 that remarkable contest. In the first place, who was Henry, and what 
 was his character? He was the most powerful sovereign of his day, ^•nd 
 his vast empire extended over more than half of Europe. His influence 
 was immense for good or for evil. He was in his twenty-third year, >yhen 
 Gregory was raised to the pontificate. His many natural good qualitiea 
 had been almost destroyed by a vicious education from his earliest youth— 
 the stream of his existence had been tainted in its very source. He had 
 given into the most criminal excesses from the time he had first mounted 
 the throne, and from'a confirmed debauchee, had become the most hemtless 
 and cruel of men. For his criminal excesses, and his shameful sale of 
 bishoprics and abbeys, he had been already summoned to appear before 
 the holy see, in the last year of Pope Alexander H.^ This summons had 
 no other effect upon the dissolute young king, than to cause him to enter 
 momentarily into himself: but on the death of Alexander, his e^ccesses 
 became more enormous and insufferable than ever. He no longer 
 observed any bounds. His court resembled more the seraglio of a 
 Turkish sultan, than the residence of a Christian prince. 
 
 Perhaps a greater monster never disgraced a throne. To obtain the 
 objects of his criminal passions, he stopped at nothing — husbands, 
 fathers, or lovers were removed by assassination 1 He knew how to refine 
 on cruelty: he could smile on you one day, and have a dagger sent to 
 your heart tfie next! In adversity, he was the meanest of sycophant^, 
 and the most crouchino-of slaves ; look at him at the diet of Tribur,^ when 
 the Saxons were victorious, and the princes of the empire had abandoned 
 him ; look at him also at the castle of Canossa, when suing for reconciliation 
 with the Church. When flushed with victory, he was the most ferocious 
 of tyrants—crushing and trampling in the dust those who had already 
 submitted: witness the horrible manner in which he overran Saxony, 
 Thuringia, and Suabia, as most graphically painted by Voigt. He >vas 
 as perfidious, as he was cruel. He could be bound neither by treaties* 
 the most solemn, nor by oaths the most sacred. In one word, he was the 
 Nero of the middle ages, and his cotemporaries gave him this title. All 
 
 1 Ep. Ti. 1, 
 
 2 See Voigt. Tol. i. p. 23. 
 
 3 Ibid, Tol. ii, 168-9. 
 
164 
 
 AGE OF POPE GREGORY VII. 
 
 these charges could be substantiated by facts almost innumerable from 
 M. Voigt, were it deemed necessary. 
 
 Such was the monster with whom Gregory had to deal. He could not 
 escape a contest with such a man, without sacrificing his most sacred 
 duty. For, in addition to Henry’s private and political crimes, he made 
 a regular traffic of the bishoprics and abbeys, intruding into them the 
 most unworthy subjects ; thus deluging the church with a flood of 
 scandals. He would sell a bishopric to one, and if another subsequently 
 offered more, he would have the former deposed as simoniacal, and bestow 
 the investiture upon the latter ! By this abuse, some of the principal 
 churches had two, and that of Milan, had three bishops at one time ! 
 Thus schisms were added to the other evils of the Church. 
 
 How did Gregory deport himself in his controversy with Henry ? The 
 limits of this article will not allow more than a very brief expose of the 
 various stages of that contest; and those who may wish a fuller account 
 of it, are referred to the luminous work of M. Voigt. We will endeavor 
 to present in order the various facts of the case, scattered through the 
 two volumes of our author ; and we think it will be seen, that a simple 
 unadorned statement of facts is the best possible vindication of Gregory’s 
 course. 
 
 1. From the very commencement of his pontificate, he employed every 
 means in his power to win the heart of Henry. He wrote to him two 
 letters ‘ full of sweetness, unction, and a divine eloquence, in which he 
 appealed to him by every consideration that was calculated to touch his 
 heart, and arouse him to a proper sense of his duty : in both of them 
 he however hinted to him, that, in conformity with the jurisprudence 
 of the age, the right to the crown could be secured to liim, ordy on 
 condition “ of his governing according to the law of God, and pro¬ 
 tecting the liberty of his holy Church.” To his own efforts, his influence 
 added those of Henry’s mother, the pious Empress Agnes, and of the 
 Countesses Beatrix and Matilda, his (Henry’s) relatives ; not to mention 
 those of the great and good Anno, archbiship of Cologne. 
 
 2. When Henry, notwithstanding the hopes with which his answer had 
 at first inspired Gregory, still continued in his evil courses, the latter did 
 not immediately excommunicate him. He proceeded slowly and cautiously. 
 His object throughout seems to have been to correct, not to crush Henry. 
 He first excommunicated the unworthy bishops who had purchased their 
 sees from him ; then five of his evil counsellors : hoping that he would 
 profit by these unequivocal demonstrations. And whenever Henry made 
 the least show of repentance, with what paternal tenderness did not the 
 Pontiff’ felicitate himP About this time, (A. D. 1073), Henry wrote 
 him a most submissive and hypocritical letter; ^ and though Gregory 
 saw through the deceit, and knew well that Henry’s difficult political 
 
 1 See them in Voigt, vol i, 407-8 Mr. Voigt thinks that these letters are master pieces of pru 
 denceand eloquence. In general, all the epistles of Gregory breathe sentiments fresh from a hear^ 
 warmed by dirine charity. 
 
 2 See his Ep. iii, 3. 
 
 3 Voigt, Tol., i p. 281. 
 
165 
 
 THE DEPOSING POWEPt. 
 
 position alone had prompted the letter, yet with what sweetness did he 
 not ans^ver this letter ! 
 
 3. Nearly two years later, in 1075, occurred the infamous plot of 
 Cencius, and the outrage upon Gregory’s person, alluded to above. The 
 Pontiff had every reason to believe, that Henry and Guibert, archbishop 
 of Ravenna, were at the head of this plot; and yet he forbore. He does 
 not even allude to it in any of his controversies with Henry ! 
 
 4. In the same year, 1075, the brave Saxons, after a noble struggle 
 against tyranny, submitted to Henry, on the faith of a solemn treaty at 
 Gerstungen, in which he promised to protect their property, and the 
 liberty and rights of their princes.‘ Henry violated his solemn oaths, and 
 trampled the brave Saxons in the dust. Crushed and bleeding, they 
 appealed to the Pope for protection. The “holy see,” says Mr. Voigt,^ 
 “ was the only tribunal, which could set any limits to imjoerial despotism, 
 as a second defender of humanity^ He might have said, that it was the 
 first, and, in many cases, the only defender of humanity, of human liberty 
 and rights. In those times of anarchy and confusion, to whom could the 
 oppressed cry, but to the common father of Christians ? Could Gregory 
 be indifferent to their cry for relief? Could he do otherwise than hear 
 their appeal, listen to their complaints, and endeavor to redress their 
 wrongs ? Henry himself had also appealed to the holy see against the 
 Saxons so that Gregory saw both pai*ties appealing to him to settle their 
 quarrel. By the fact, he was virtually chosen arbitrator. . Who can then 
 blame him for taking cognizance of the cause, and for deciding in - it 
 according to justice ? Would not posterity have censured him, had he 
 neglected the appeal, thus solemnly interposed ? At the instance of 
 Rodolph, duke of Suabia, and of other German princes, Gregory had been 
 induced'' nearly two years previously, in 1073-4, to act as mediator between 
 Henry and the rebellious Saxons. He had accepted the office, and had 
 written a most eloquent letter^ to many bishops and princes of Germany, 
 imploring them to use their influence to stop the effusion of blood, until 
 the difficulties could be amicably adjusted. But amidst the din of arms, 
 this voice had not been heard. About the same time, Henry had sent 
 ambassadors to Rome to complain of the Saxons so that he may be said 
 to have appealed twice to the holy see. Gregory therefore had a right to 
 interfere in the political affairs of Germany, under each of two characters-- 
 that of mediator, and that of arbitrator. Why have his enemies concealed 
 these facts ? 
 
 5. And who were the Saxons, whose cause Gregory espoused? They 
 were the oppressed : they were the advocates of liberty! The decision of 
 Gregory against Henry was a blow aimed at tyranny, and sti-uck for the 
 rights of the people. If ever a people deserved liberty, the Saxons 
 merited that boon. Instead of being the fierce savages that some 
 
 1 Voigt, vol. ii, p 78. 2 Vol. ii, p. 98. 3 Ibid, ii, p. 97. 
 
 4 Ibid. vol. i, p. 360. 5 Ep. i, 39. 
 
 6 Ibid, vol. i, p. 381. Where he cites lor his authority, his favorite historian Lambert. 
 
 •3 
 
166 
 
 AGE OF POPE GREGORY VI1. 
 
 historians would fain represent them, they were remarkable for their 
 accurate perception of right and justice, and for their firm, yet moderate 
 advocacy of their liberties. At the famous convention of the Saxon 
 people at Nockmeslove, in 1073', Otto of Nordheim made a speech, 
 which for solid reasoning, and moving eloquence, perhaps equals any 
 effort of our own Patrick Henry.* Its stirring accents rang throughout 
 all Saxony, and its effect was not only to thrill every bosom, but to cause 
 the war cry “ To arms ! to arms/*’’ to be heard from every valley and 
 hill-top ! To show in what light the oath of fealty to the king was 
 viewed in those days, we will present the following extract from Otto’s 
 speech: — 
 
 “ Perhaps you hesitate to break the oath you have token to the king, 
 because you are Christians ! What ! To the king ! So long as he was 
 king for me — so long as he showed himself such, I liave scrupulously 
 
 observed the oath I had token : since he has ceased to act like a kinu', 
 
 • • 
 
 and to discharge the duties of a king, I owe him fealty no longer. 
 Courafre then! We do not march against the kinir. No—but against 
 
 O o o o 
 
 the enemy of our liberty ; against the enemy of our country, Ac.” 
 
 Tliis reasoning only alleges a principle generally received in the middle 
 ages : that obedience and 'protection are correlative terms, and that the 
 former ceases to be obligatory, where the latter is wanting.^ According 
 to this principle, Henry could have been deposed without the sanction 
 of the Pope ; and in fact the princes of the empire seriously thought 
 of doing so before Gregory had spoken. The Saxons, in appealing 
 to the Pope, had not only expressly recognized in him the power of 
 deposing princes, but had said, that the German empire was a fief of 
 the holy see.^ In fine, Gregory, while declaring under all the circura^ 
 stances, that the Saxons were absolved from their oath of allegiance to 
 Henry, did precisely what every American and every lover of liberty 
 would have done. 
 
 6. In answer to the appeal of. the Saxons, Gregory wrote a letter to 
 Henry, in which, after having employed all his eloquence to reclaim 
 him, he threatened him with excommunication, unless he repented and 
 reformed,"* Flushed with his recent victory over the Saxons, Henry 
 despised the admonitions of the Pontiff. He assembled a conventicle at 
 Worms, in 1075, which attempted to depose Gregory, and to set up 
 Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, in his stead.® He directed two insolent 
 letters to the P*oman people and to the Pope, to announce to them the 
 decision of the mock council: and he sent Rolando, a secret emissary, to 
 insult the Pontiff to his face in the council which he was to open in Rome. 
 
 1 IVhofcTcr will read the portion of this famous speech, given us by Mr. Voigt, (vol. i, p. 288-9, 
 &c.) will scarcely think this an exaggeration. If some one would take the trouble to collect, togeth¬ 
 er the various famous speeches of the middle ages, and present them in a good English dress, he 
 would add to the stock of medieval literature. This speech, two or tl>ree of Gregory before Roman 
 councils, and one of Urban II. at the council of Cleremont in 1095, might belong to the collection. 
 
 2 See deci.'ion of a council of Toledo referred to by Guizot—Lectures, &c., where this principle 
 is connected with the etymology of the word rex, recte. 
 
 3 See Voigt., vol. ii, p. 98. 4 Ibid, p. 103. 
 
 6 Ibid, p. 107. 
 
 4 
 
THE DEPOSING POWER. 
 
 167 
 
 Gregory screened the envoy from the pnnisliment which his insolence 
 provoked : he read the insulting documents himself to the council, with 
 the utmost sang froid ; and, in order to let the excitement subside, he 
 adjourned the session until the next day. He then calmly explained, to 
 the one hundred and ten assembled bishops, the whole of his past relations 
 with Henry, and his wish to secure the freedom and peace of the Church. 
 It was only at the most urgent request of the council, that he consented 
 to excommunicate Henry.' 
 
 7. It is manifest, that, in the whole proceeding, Gregory wished ta‘ 
 correct, and not to degrade Henry : hence, in a letter to the princes and 
 bishops of Germany, he promised to readmit him on repentance.'' 
 
 8. It was a law of the German empire, that if a prince remained under 
 excommunication for one year, he forfeited his crown.^ Hence it was, 
 that Henry was in so much haste to be absolved by Gregory at Canossa. 
 
 9. If Gregory deposed Henry, the consent of princes and people at that, 
 time secured to him the right to do so. This is so certain, that it is not 
 deemed necessary to adduce facts to prove it. Voigt admits it;'' and his 
 translator proves it by incontestable cotemporary documents.® Gregory 
 then usurped nothing; — he is fully borne out by the spirit and the' 
 jurisprudence of his age.^ 
 
 10. Finally, though Henry was not sincere in obtaining absolution 
 from the excommunication at Canossa ; thoug^h in less than fifteen davs 
 thereafter he broke all his solemn oaths; yet Gregory abstained for nearly 
 four years from renewing the excommunication. His legates in Germany 
 went beyond their instructions, when, at the diet of Forcheim in 1077, 
 ihey approved of the election of Rodolph. He often lamented this 
 imprudent step.’' He viewed it as premature, and calculated to foment, 
 rather than to remedy the troubles of Germany and of the Church; and 
 he declares, that “he would rather suffer death, if necessary, than be the 
 cause of the troubles of the Church.” ® He labored incessantly to heal 
 the divisions of Germany, and to stop the effusion of' blood; council after 
 council he assembled in Rome ; diet after diet he appointed to be held in 
 Germany, for the final settlement of the matter. But Henry thwarted all 
 his measures; so far from seeking, he was afraid of that justice which 
 Gregory wished to have meted out to him. He, then—and not Gregory— 
 was responsible for the protracted civil war in Germany. 
 
 Such was Gregory VII., as shown by his acts. Henry triumphed over 
 
 1 See Voigt, vol. ii, p. 115, et seq. 2 Ibid, p. 129. 3 Ibid, p. 137. 
 
 4 Ibid, p 214. 5 See his introduction, p. lix. et seq. 
 
 6 See a, work by Gosselin, published in Paris, 1829, entitled, ‘‘ Pouvoir des I'apes, sur les eoure- 
 rains, au Moyen Age.” See also the admirable work of Count de Maistre, “ Du Pape.” Volcairo 
 also admits this. 
 
 7 This fact does not appear to be generally known. Even Feller (Diet. Hist. Art. Greg. VTI.) 
 ascribes the election of Ilodolph to Gregory: and this too, in the face of many of the PoiitifTs 
 letters, and of his solemn declaration to the contrary at the Roman council held in 1080! lie also 
 asserts, that Gregory excommunicated Henry again, immediately after their reconciliation at Canossa 
 In 1076: whereas, though his legates in Germany renewed the excommunication in 1077, yet the 
 Pontiff himself abstained from doing so until 1080. 
 
 8 Ep. iv, 24. 
 
168 
 
 > 
 
 AGE OF POPE GPvEGORY VII. 
 
 him for a time ; and he died an exile ; but he died as he had lived — 
 virtuous, calm, unshaken, and happy. Henry died, reduced to the lowest 
 degradation, abandoned by all and despised by all, even by his own sons, 
 who had successfully carried on a civil war against him. Gregory was 
 “ the Hercules of the middle ages : he enchained monsters, crushed the 
 hydra of feudalism, saved Europe from barbarism, and what is more 
 beautiful still, he illustrated Christian society by his virtues.” ' 
 
 An able Protestant writer appreciates his noble courage, as well as 
 the lofty motives which animated it, in the following eloquent language: 
 
 Had Hildebrand’s sick heart failed him then, it would not have been 
 strange ; but he looked at his crucifix, at the image of his forsaken, 
 dying, and yet victorious Master, and grew strong; for that told him 
 how little the final triumph of a moral truth can be judged of from 
 immediate success or failure. ‘And I, too,’ he murmured to himself, 
 in words which, a few weeks later, were the last upon his lips, ‘ And I, 
 too, have loved justice and hated iniquity, and I die an exile.’ The 
 future was hidden to him ; but’ he knew that God ruled, that the great 
 thoughts, which by his struggles he had made familiar to man, rested 
 not on his strength, but on an eternal basis ; and tliat, though he was 
 passing away, the Omnipotent remained as tJie world’s ruler; — he knew 
 that he had sown the seed, and that God would give the harvest.”^ 
 
 We conclude with the last words of M. Voigt’s history : 
 
 “ It is difficult to bestow on him exaggerated eulogy : for he has laid 
 everywhere the foundation of a solid glory. But every one should wish 
 to render justice to whom justice is due ; let no one cast a stone at one 
 who is innocent: let every one respect and honor a man who has labored 
 for his age, with views so grand and so generous. Let him who is 
 conscious of having calumniaied him, re-enter into his own conscience.” 
 
 1 Abbe Jager, Introd, p. xcix. 
 
 2 North Ausjerican ReTieWj 1845. 
 
i 
 
 IX. THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 ROME AND AVIGNON.* 
 
 The Reformers before the IJeformation — Ronnechose and D’Aubignft compared — The former as an 
 historian — Is lie ingenuous or fair? — Inaccuracies—Scope of his work—The Schism a fiery 
 ordeal for the Church — From which she came forth unscathed — Scandals to be expected — 
 Morality of the Popes—Origin of the Schism — The i>apacy ‘'stooping to conquer”—Contest 
 between Boniface VIII., and Philip the Fair—■ I'lte death of Boniface, and election of his suc¬ 
 cessor — Intrigues of Philip — The Popes reside at Avignon — Their policy — Return to Rome — 
 Election of Urban VI.— Defection of Cardinals — They set up Clement VII. —Who moves to 
 Avignon — Political ambition of princes—‘The evil and the remedy come from France—Univer¬ 
 sity of I'aris — Council of Pisa — And of Constance—Election of Martin V. — End of the 
 Schism — Remarks—Triuinph of the Church — Relation of tlie Pope to a general council 
 — Reforming the Church ‘'in its head and members”—The succession not interrupted — Two 
 objections answered — Church emerged from the Schism stronger than ever — And so did the 
 papacy. 
 
 We suppose it was the shrewd Irish translator, or the enterprising 
 American publishers, who prefixed to the titlei-page of the work of M. 
 Bonnechose the additional sentence, “ An introduction to ‘ D’Aubignc’s 
 History of the Reformation.’” Whoever did it, it was a lucky idea, based 
 on a proper appreciation of the qualities and relationship of the two 
 publications. D’Aubigne and Bonnechose are evidently of a kindred 
 spirit ; they are a par nobile fratrtim. Both are filled with a pious horror 
 of Catholicity; both can find nothing good in the lives, character, or 
 motives of Popes, cardinals, or bishops ; both, we apprehend, are thoroughly 
 imbued with the stern, unyielding, and gloomy spirit of Calvinism ; and 
 both have earnestly endeavored to infuse their own dark prejudices into the 
 minds of others. Both write with great spirit and vigor; both have a 
 sufficient smattering of learning to mislead the unlearned and unwary; 
 both are violent and unscrupulous partisans. In fine, both are disin¬ 
 genuous, and both deal largely in sophistry and romance. 
 
 But we consider the “Introduction” a far more able, and, therefore, a 
 far more dangerous production, than the work itself by the historian “ of 
 the great Reformation.” D’Aubigne is a religious fanatic and an historical 
 romancer ; he wholly suppresses at least one half of the evidence properly 
 belonging to his subject, and greatly perverts the other half. He labors 
 to invest his heroes with the romantic interest which attaches to the 
 personal history of the paladins of knight-errantry ; he dragoons them into 
 
 *An Introduction to “ D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation.” The Reformers 
 before the Reformation. 'I'lie fifteenth century. John liuss and the Council of 
 Constance. By Emile de Bonnechose, librarian of the kini^ of France, author of 
 ‘•Hi.stoire de France,” '• Ilistoire Sacree,” &c. 'I'ranslated from the French by 
 Campl)ell McKetizie, B. A., Trinity Colle<,% Dublin, Complete in one volume, Svo., 
 
 pp. 199. New York 
 T 
 
 llarner & Brothers. 1844. 
 
 169 
 
170 
 
 THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 the ranks of saintship, whether they will or nothe entirely conceals their 
 many gross and glaring vices, and invents incidents and anecdotes to 
 exhibit their superior righteousness ! 
 
 This is so notoriously true, that an able Protestant writer in the Southern 
 Quarterly Review freely admits “the utter futility of the ‘History of the 
 great Reformation,’ as a text book, or an authority.” He adds, with what 
 we take for withering sarcasm, that “ D’Aubigne may do for the Sunday 
 school,”—where piety, based on a holy hatred of Rome, is more appre¬ 
 ciated than truth,—“but for the student, the scholar, the theologer, the 
 polemic, he is utterly useless — nay, he is worse than useless — he is 
 positively pernicious.”^ 
 
 We think that the same verdict will be ultimately rendered by all 
 intelligent men on the historical merits of M. Bonnechose, author of the 
 book with the somewhat Hibernian title : “ The Reformers before the 
 Reformation.” Yet this must be the work of time. M. Bonnechose is, as 
 we have already intimated, a very different man from M. D’Aubigne. He 
 at least has some pretensions to be an historian. He has evidently examined 
 the original authorities ; at least as many of tliem, as he deemed necessary 
 to establish and illustrate his own favorite views of the subject which he 
 undertook to handle. As a writer, he is grave, earnest, and often eloquent. 
 His narrative is succinct and correct; and its interest is tolerably .well 
 sustained to the end. His statements and explanations of facts are 
 ingenious and plausible ; he is not, like .D’Aubigne, glaringly inconsistent 
 and absurd on almost every page. He even makes an occasional admission 
 in favor of the Popes and of the Catholic Church, when the evidence is 
 such that he cannot well help it: but even then he qualities the admission; 
 and you are almost tempted to believe that he makes it, as much with a 
 view to appear impartial, and to lure on his readers to receive implicitly 
 his other statements, as through a sincere love of truth. 
 
 In short, to refute him, a man must travel back to the record ; he must 
 minutely examine and thoroughly sift the original authorities; he must 
 verify his references ; must see whether he has given the true sense of the 
 authors he quotes, whether he garbles passages, whether he omits portions 
 of the testimony which would prove the contrary of what he asserts ; in 
 fine, he must see what authors he quotes, wiiat is their weight and authority, 
 what influences impelled them to write, and liow far their testimony is to 
 be relied on. Then another most imporiant consideration must not be 
 neglected : does the historian quote the cotemporary authors who wrote on 
 hath sides, or does he confine himself almost entirely to writers on one side ? 
 If the former, then may he claim the palm of impartiality, provided he 
 quote honestly and fully ; if the latter, he is a thorough partisan, who needs 
 watching, and whose word you may rely on only so far as, by your own 
 researches, you may ascertain it to be founded in truth. 
 
 Now, we don’t profess to have gone through all the patient labor, and 
 
 1 Only think of the burly friar, Martin Luther,— tbe knight of the bottle, and the hero of the 
 Black Eagle tavern of Wittemberg for fifteen years,— being a saint! 
 
 2 Art. VJI. of No xiii Oct. 1844. 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON.* 
 
 171 
 
 to have made all the researches just indicated. But we do claim to have 
 done enough in the premises to satisfy our own minds, and to be able tc 
 convince impartial men, that M. Bonnechose is any thing but a safe or 
 impartial historian. He quotes chiefly on one side only ; and we distinctly 
 charge him with garbling his own authors, in more instances than one. 
 We have examined the originals, and we speak advisedly on the subject. 
 
 We will, at present, indicate but two instances of this inexcusable disin¬ 
 genuousness. The first occurs on page 12, in the quotation from a work 
 of Nicholas de Clemangis,* the secretary of Clement VII., the claimant of 
 the papacy at Avignon; the other on page 60, in the translation of the 
 well known safe conduct given by the emperor Sigismund to John Huss. 
 
 In both cases, he gives the passages as continuous ; and yet, what is your 
 surprise at finding, on turning to the originals, that he has left out whole 
 lines and phrases, materially affecting and even changing the sense! Can 
 a man who does this be relied on as a safe guide ? 
 
 But this is not all. Only think of a grave historian, in the nineteenth 
 century, writing a book, too, which he wishes to be received as veracious 
 history,— of a librarian of the French king, who ought surely to have 
 known better,— seriously and solemnly quoting as authority Fox,^ the 
 notorious English martyrologist ; the man who was convicted of having 
 put down, in his canting book, the names of many martyred victims of 
 papal cruelty, who, however, survived the publication of his work, and 
 afterwards openly declared that they were not dead at all, but still living 
 in spite of Fox’s zeal against popery! Only think of his actually praising 
 this same notorious Fox, and ranking him with the Bollandists ! 
 
 But armin. M. Bonnechose is often as inaccurate in his statement of 
 
 O 
 
 important facts, as he is unsafe in his authorities, and loose in his manner 
 of quoting them. We can, at present, stop to furnish but one instance of 
 this : many others will come up in the sequel. He flippantly tells us that, 
 “in three months after his (Urban VI.,) elevation to the popedom, the 
 very persons that had chosen him protested against his election.” 
 
 Now, if this means, as the sequel would seem to imply, that, after l/iree ^ 
 months, the cardinals proceeded to a new election, it is wholly unfounded 
 in fact. Urban VI., was elected at Rome on the 8th day of April, 1378 ; 
 and Clement VII. was chosen at Fondi on the 20th of September of the 
 same year, making the interval between the two elections months and 
 
 1 He does not, lell us even from what work of Clemangis or Clamengis he quotes. Nor does ha 
 furnisii any niarginal reference. Tlie passage is found entire in llardt—Council. Constant, C. 42, p. 46 
 of tom, i, part 111. in a work ascribed to Clemangis, entitled, De corrupto Ecclesias Siaiu ; and. at a later 
 period, De Knina Eccle.-iae The work was, in all probability, not written Clemangis at all, but 
 about a centnrv after his death, either by Bishop John de Chlem of Poland, or by another John de 
 Chiem.see in Bavaria. The first edition of it appeared in l.aiid.shut in Bavaria, in 1.524. This 
 consideration up.-ets the whole authority of the book as a cotemporary history ; and yet our author 
 breathes not a syllable of ail this lie could garble the book, but could not find space to tell hia 
 readers that its authenticity i.«, at best, very question.able. 
 
 2 P. 193 Note He depends on fox for the articles of John IIuss condemned in the council of 
 Constance! Why not quote them at once from the acts of the council? Was Fox a cotemporary 
 historian? On turning to the acts of the council, it will be perceived that Fox has cruelly misled 
 him, both as to the order and the meaning of the propositions condemned. 
 
 3 Preface p. 1. 4 Historical Introduction, p. 11. 
 
172 
 
 THE GR. EAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 twelve lays. If the assertion about the months mean only to mark 
 the time of departure of the cardinals from Rome to Anagni, (not Agnani, 
 as he writes it), it is still wrong. The proclamation of the cardinals 
 assembled at Anagni, containing the protest alluded to, is dated August 
 9, 1^378,/owr months and one day after the election of Urban VI. Nor 
 let us be told that this is a very trifling fault, and that, in animadverting 
 on it, we are hypercritical. The precise time intervening between the two 
 elections is very important, in settling the relative claims to the papacy of 
 the two aspirants ; and surely a grave historian, who pretends to write a 
 veridical history, should have been more exact. 
 
 These are a few, out of the many reasons, which have led us to the 
 conclusion that M. Bonnechose is not a Safe historian, and that his asser 
 tions need some confirmation other than his own bare word. But the 
 chief fault we have to find with him, is his glaring partiality, and his open 
 hostility to the creed and persons of those who figure most conspicuously 
 in his history. He evidently gloats over the evils and disorders attending 
 the great papal Schism : he has no sympathies to bestow upon a suffering 
 • and agonized Church, torn by schism within, and fiercely assailed by 
 heresy from without: the sufferings of John Huss, of Jerome of Prague, 
 and of the Hussites, seem to have engrossed all his sympathies, and to 
 have exhausted his whole stock of humanity. In a word, he exhibits all 
 the shades, with scarcely any of the lights of the picture. This is the 
 greatest defect of the book. 
 
 We wish from our heart it had been otherwise. We are heartily tired 
 of seeing history, which should be the noble and fearless witness of the 
 truth, prostituted to the vile purposes of sectarian strife, and engaged in a 
 grand conspiracy against the truth. We wish M. Bonnechose had 
 approached his subject with a mind free from undue prejudice, and 
 determined to ascertain and to publish the truth at all hazards. We wish 
 he had been true, even to the purpose he conceived in undertaking his 
 work, as he declares it in the preface 
 
 “ This work, in a historical point of view, is intended to make known 
 and appreciated the great religious movement which took place a century 
 before the reformation in Europe. It embraces a period of seventy years, 
 which elapsed from the beginning of the GREAT SCHISM of the WEST 
 in 1378, to the end of the war of the Hussites, towards the middle of the 
 following century. The principal doctrines which divided Europe during 
 that memorable period are exposed to view in it; and the illustrious men 
 who originated and defended them are carefully depicted.” 
 
 The plan of the author thus embraced the history of the Great Schism, 
 and of the rise and progress of the Hussites. It was perhaps the most 
 disastrous period in Church History. Never, since the days of the 
 apostles, had so many evils beset the Church at the same time, and 
 threatened her very existence. More than once before, her peace had 
 Deen disturbed by schism ; but there never had been a schism so appalling, 
 of so long continuance, and so seemingly incurable, as that which rent her 
 
 1 Page 7. 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 173 
 
 bosom during the last quarter of the fourteenth, and the first quarter of the 
 fifteenth century, Never had she passed through an ordeal so fiery; 
 never had her institutions had to abide so severe a test. To add to her 
 embarrassment, a fierce and truculent heresy, threatening the very 
 foundations of all society, both religious and political, then broke out, like 
 a terrific storm, threatening to leave nothing but ruins in its course. 
 
 As our author says, it was truly “ a strange period and fruitful in 
 storms,” ‘ — “an unfortunate period when a spirit of boldness and violence 
 agitated all classes of society, and produced in every direction sanguinary 
 disorders.”^ We may almost apply to it, what Tacitus says of a certain 
 disastrous era in Roman history, that it was a period “ fertile in vicissitudes, 
 atrocious in wars, discordant by seditions;” — and we add with him, in a 
 qualified sense, “ fierce even in peace.” ^ 
 
 If ever the Church could be destroyed, this seemed the time clearly 
 marked out for her destruction. If ever “ the gates of hell could prevail 
 over her,” this seemed to be the period chosen for their triumph. If ever 
 the solemn promises of Christ were to go unredeemed, and the Church, 
 His spouse “without spot or wrinkle or blemish,” “subject to Him in all 
 things,”''—a spouse whom He had so long and so dearly loved, and for whom 
 He had shed the last drop of His heart’s purest blood, — was to be torn 
 from His bosom, and to be rudely insulted, trodden under foot, and crushed 
 by the nations, — now seemed to have arrived that time. But if Christ’s 
 love could not fail; if His purpose could not be baffled ; if His promises 
 could not be falsified; then might the bosom of this cherished spouse, no 
 matter how dark the clouds which overhung her pathway, be still calm in 
 the storm. Amidst all her sorrows, she might still hope, even against 
 hope ; and the result would prove,—and did prove,— that she hoped not 
 in vain ! 
 
 We care not, how many and how appalling were the disorders and 
 dangers which then threatened the Church ; we care not, how dark may 
 be the shades of the picture which the truth of history may compel us to 
 draw of the period in question : if the evils had been a hundred fold 
 worse and more aggi-avated, the final and glorious triumph of the Church 
 has proved that she is indestructible ; — indestructible by moral disorder's 
 reigning in her midst, but never, for a moment, sanctioned by her 
 authority,— indestructible by human passions,— indestructible by here¬ 
 sies,— indestructible by causes violently rending her very bOsom, and 
 which would certainly have inflicted death, had she been at all mortal. 
 
 We hope to show, as we progress, that we are not afraid of the truth, 
 and of the whole truth. We are not surprised at scandals, because Christ 
 foretold that they should come ; and they are a necessary result of human 
 depravity combined \vi h free agency. The most ardent champion of th^ 
 papacv never once dreamed, that the Roman Pontiff is either impeccable, 
 
 1 P 117. 2 p. 37. 
 
 3 Opiiiinm casibus, atrox prccliis, di.scor8 seditionibus, ipsa etiam pace scevuin. Uist. 1. i, c. il. 
 
 4 Ephesians ch. r. 
 
 T2 
 
174 
 
 THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 or personally infallible in his private capacity. He is a man like others, 
 knowing infirmity, beset with temptations, and exposed to commit sin. 
 If Peter sinned, we need not be surprised tliat a few of his successors have 
 followed his example. If one of the twelve, raised under the very eye of 
 the blessed Jesus, and imbued from His lips with holy doctrine, became a 
 traitor and an apostate, it is not at all surprising that a few Popes should 
 likewise have fallen into vice. Every impartial man, no matter what his 
 prejudices, will, however, admit that it is a fact, highly honorable to the 
 venerable line of the Popes, that, out of more than tw6 hundred and fifty 
 of them, only five or six, at most, can be pointed out as immoral and 
 wicked men.* And it is a proof of the true Catholic spirit, and of the 
 noble freedom and candor which Catholicity inspires, that the vices of 
 these men have been exposed and rebuked by Catholic writers more 
 sternly, perhaps, than by even the bitterest enemies of the papacy. 
 
 As we cannot, within our narrow limits, undertake to examine the 
 • statements of M. Bonnechose in detail, we propose to do, what may 
 perhaps be better, as well as more interesting and satisfactory to the 
 general reader,— rapidly to go over the same ground winch he has 
 traversed ; partly in his company, and partly in that of certain venerable 
 old chroniclers whom he appears to have studiously avoided. And first, 
 we will endeavor to furnish a condensed sketch of the causes, rise, 
 progress, and termination of the Great Schism of the West : and then, 
 in a separate paper, we will attempt to discuss the character of John Huss 
 and his treatment by the council of Constance ; and to unfold, in a 
 summary manner, the history of the Hussites, both before and after tb.e 
 death of their founder. 
 
 As we proceed, we will endeavor to supply some of the manifold 
 deficiencies, to correct the occasional blunders, and to expose the sophistry 
 of our historian ; so far at least as we shall be able to attain these objects, 
 without turning too much from the path we have marked out. And we 
 will advance nothing important, without a clear warrant from the original 
 authorities themselves.^ 
 
 Our author’s theory on the origin of the Schism is obscure and vague 
 enough.^ If his words have any definite meaning, — and it would require 
 one more sharp-sighted than ourselves to extract from them any clear signi¬ 
 fication,— they imply the opinion, that the Schism originated in the lofty 
 
 1 And even the vices imputed to some of these have been greatly exaggerated. 
 
 2 The principal autliorinies on the Great Schism of the West are the following: the original 
 documents contained in D’ Achery — Spicilegiutn, t. i, p. 763, seqq. ; in Martene and Durand — The¬ 
 saurus novns Anecd. tom. ii, p. 1073, seqq. ; and in the Veterum Script. Ampli.<sima Collectio by the 
 same author.^, tom vii p 425, seqq. Also Thoodoricus de Niem (writer to the Uoman Copes from 
 1378 to 1410), lihri iii. de Schismate, to which a fourth was afterwards added, with the title — 
 Nemus Uuionis—all published together, Basileae, 1566, fol. etc. This writer is bitter in his tone, 
 barbarous in his Latin, and exaggerated in his statements. He is in consequence a special favorite 
 of M. Bonnechose To tliese add the more recent writers: Louis Maimbourg (Catholic) llistoire 
 du Grand Schismo d'Occident, a Baris, 1678, 4to.: Pierre du Puy (Catholic) llistoire du Schisnie, 
 Paris, 1700. 12nio: the Preface to the Ampliss. Collectio of Martene and Durand, supra; and the 
 work of .Jaq L’Enfant (Calvinist) Hist, du Concile de Pi.se, 1. i and ii — Ainsterd. 1724. 4‘o 
 Consult also Labbaei Concilia Pisanum etConstant. and De Ilardt—Cone. Constant, tom. ii, p. 836, st-q 
 
 3 In trod. p. 10 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 175 
 
 ambition and exaggerated pretensions of the Popes. This is, to say the 
 least, a very short-sighted and narrow view of the case. For more than 
 seventy years before the Schism, there had been steadily at work a number 
 of influences, partly internal and partly external to the papacy, which 
 slowly but surely brought it about. The lawless ambition cherished by 
 the different claimants of the popedom may have perpetuated the Schism, 
 after it had already commenced; of itself it could scarcely have caused it, 
 without the co-operation of other powerful influences. 
 
 We are, however, free to admit, at the very outset, that the veneration 
 universally paid to the Roman Pontiffs during the middle ages, and the 
 temporal and political consequence with which a long train of events had 
 invested the papal office, made the tiara a glittering prize for the ambitious 
 aspirant. But that same deep and abiding reverence would not have 
 brooked the ambition, which sought the dignity by undue means, or to the 
 sacrifice of unity. It was the ambition of princes, much more than the 
 ambition of Popes, which originated and perpetuated the Great Schism. 
 Had the Church been left to herself, she would never have been rent by 
 division. 
 
 In her humane efforts to subdue the ferocity, to correct the morals, and 
 to humanize the manners of the European nations, during the earlier portion 
 of tlie middle ages, the Church had been necessarily drawn into the vortex 
 of European politics; and once drawn in, she was compelled to share in all 
 its dangers, storms, and vicissitudes. The papacy had “stooped to con¬ 
 quer;” it had descended from its lofty position of mere spirituality into the 
 arena of worldly affairs, in order to reclaim men from barbarism, and the 
 result was, that to maintain itself in its new relations to society, it had to 
 intermingle in scenes of worldly strife, and to surround itself with worldly 
 consequence. The princes of Europe, who had freely acknowledged and 
 encouraged this political power of the Popes, and who derived from it so 
 many signal advantages, at length became weary of the restraints it imposed 
 on them, and shook off the yoke; and the papacy was thus compelled to 
 return to its original position. But, ere it did return, it bore on its body 
 the marks of cruel wounds, received in the conflict with the princes of the 
 world. The Great Schism of the west was a severe, but perhaps, a necessary 
 lesson. It taught the papacy what it had to expect from that treacherous 
 world which had crucified its Founder; it threw it back on its primitive 
 resources; it taught it wherein lay its real strength, and the true secret of 
 its vitality and indestructibility. 
 
 This general view of the subject sheds great light on the origin of the 
 Schism. As we have already intimated, to explain the causes which led 
 to it, we must go back for more than seventy years, to the period of the 
 unfortunate controversy between Pope Boniface VIII.’ and Philip the Fair, 
 king of France. The circumstances of that unhappy difference are familiar 
 to every reader of Church History; the results which grew out of it are 
 
 1 lie was elected Pope December 24.1294, and died October 11, 1303. lie was the successor of St 
 Coelestine V 
 
176 
 
 THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST, 
 
 too marked to be easily forgotten. Both of tlie illustrious disputants no 
 doubt went too far; but we think the impartial will admit, that Philip was 
 much more in the wrong than his opponent. Young, ardent, ambitious, 
 and unscrupulous, the French monarch seemed to aim at nothing less than 
 universal empire. He was the Napoleon of his day ; and, like Napoleon, 
 he dragged the Popes into captivity. He had embroiled himself in a 
 struggle with England and with Aragon; and the consequence was an 
 almost general war throughout Europe. 
 
 Boniface, treading in the footsteps of his predecessors, sought to pour oil 
 on the boiling waters ; and he' offered to mediate between the belligerent 
 sovereigns. He succeeded in bringing about a peace between France and 
 Aragon ; and his proffer of mediation between France and England, though 
 at first declined, was at length accepted by the fiery French monarch. 
 His award, though very wise and impartial,' was, however, contemptuously 
 refused by the ambitious Philip; and the war raged on with renewed 
 violence. 
 
 To raise the amount necessary to prosecute the war with vigor, Philip 
 imposed most exorbitant taxes on both the clergy and laity of his king¬ 
 dom ; he reduced the church of France to a cruel servitude ; and he even 
 went so far as to debase the coin of the kingdom ! Boniface protested 
 against his iniquitous conduct, in the face of all Europe ; he issued bull 
 after bull against him ; he waxed stronger and stronger in his denuncia¬ 
 tions ; and finally, he excommunicated Philip, and placed France under an 
 interdict. Philip treated his menaces and excommunication with contempt; 
 and, though the bold Pontiff more than once evinced a disposition for an 
 accommodation, he spurned all his offers. The states general of France 
 were convened; and William de Nogaret, the keeper of the royal seals, 
 was despatched to Rome with a strong protest against the proceedings of 
 the Pope. This unscrupulous envoy seized on the person of Boniface at 
 Anagni; and one of his attendants, Sciarra Colonna, a personal enemy of the 
 Pontiff, is said to have struck him on the face with his gauntlet. Though 
 rescued from tlie hands of his enemies by the people of Anagni, Boniface 
 soon after died at Rome, probably of ill treatment and of chagrin. 
 
 Thus rid of his dread opponent, Philip did not, however, cease to per¬ 
 secute his memory. The better to effect his purpose of vengeance, ho 
 used every effcrt to have a successor elected who would enter into his own 
 views. But at first he did not succeed to the full extent of his wishes. 
 Benedict XI. was chosen by the cardinals ; but, though he consented to 
 modify some of the more obnoxious among the bulls of his predecessor, 
 yet he would not, during the few months of his pontificate, consent to all 
 the wishes of Philip. 
 
 On the death of this Pontiff, Philip brought every influence to bear on 
 the conclave of cardinal electors ; and the result was the election to the 
 popedom of one among his own subjects, Bertrand d’Agoust,. archbishop 
 
 1 Gieseler, a Protestant, admits '• tliat this decision was not partial.” Text Book Eccles. Hist, 
 vol. ii, p. 241. Note. Americau edition, in 3 Tols. Sto. 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 177 
 
 of Bordeaux, who took the name of Clement V. He was chosen on tho 
 6Lh day of June, 1305; and, in accordance with the wishes of tlie French 
 monarch, with whom he is said to have had a secret undersUmding’, he 
 took up his residence at Avignon in France. 
 
 This was, in every respect, a most unfortunate step. It made the Popes 
 entirely too dependent on France. It crippled their energies, and greatly 
 diminished the sphere of their usefulness. Their acts were often viewed 
 with suspicion by those belonging to other kingdoms ; and, wlien Fiance 
 was at war with any other European power, tiie Pontiff was scarcely free 
 to hold communication with its subjects. No one can read the history of 
 the seven Popes who successively reigned at Avignon,' from 1305 to 1378’J 
 without being convinced of the evils consequent on this state of depend¬ 
 ence, and without feeling that the Pontiff should be independent of all the 
 sovereigns of Europe. Most of them were too much taken up with mere 
 worldly business, and were too subservient to the interests of France ; and 
 a few of them,—as John XXII.,— were addicted to nepotism. Witn these 
 exceptions, however, they were in the main good men ; some of tliem were 
 very exemplary. Benedict XII. in particular, won tlie esteem of all by 
 his zeal and disinterestedness. He was wont to say, that a Pontiff should 
 be, like Melchisedech, “ without father, without mother, without genealogy.’^ 
 
 When Clement V. determined to reside in France, it is not probable 
 that he foresaw all the evils which would result from this step, or that his 
 successors would imitate his example. He and they were still bishops of 
 Rome, which they governed by their vicars. On his death, a long contest 
 ensued in the conclave in regard to the choice of a successor. The two 
 parties of the French and Italian cardinals, the mutual jealousy of which 
 afterwards caused and perpetuated the Schism, already began to show them¬ 
 selves, in their strong antagonism. The Italians, however, gained the day ; so 
 far at least as to exact an oath from the newly elected Pontiff, that he would, 
 without delay, return to Rome. John XXII., upon whom the choice fell,, 
 evaded or forgot the fulfillment of his promise. 
 
 His successors unfortunately imitated his example. The number of 
 French soon exceeded that of the Italian cardinals in the conclave, French • 
 influence thus became paramount in the election of the Pontifis ; and the 
 return of the Popes to their see seemed to be almost indefinitely postponed. 
 Seventy-one years elapsed, ere the papacy could recover from the false and 
 unnatural position, into which the intrigues of Philip the Fair and the pliant 
 compliance of Clement V. had beti-ayed it. 
 
 Meantime, Rome, deprived of the presence and influence of its chief 
 pastor,* was de.solate in its widowhood, and was torn by factions, caused by 
 ambitious noblemen or demagogues striving for the mastery. Her voice 
 of wailing was heard throughout Europe, and its sounds were most pathetic 
 and emphatic at the gates of the pontifical palace at Avignon. Embassy 
 
 1 Clement. V, .Tolin XXII., Benedict, XIT., Clement VI , Umocent VI, Urban V., and Gregory XI. 
 Wecould easily multiply quotations froin the original t-ouires to prove all the statement.^ madeabov© 
 did we not fear to cumber our margin too much with references. 
 
 15 
 
178 
 
 THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 after embassy was sent to implore the Pontiffs to return to their see. The 
 eloquence of the great poet laureate, Petrarch, was enlisted in this noble 
 cause. To its mere human accents was added a voice from heaven, calling 
 back the Pontiff to his widowed church. The sainted women, Bridget of 
 Sweden, Catharine, her daughter, and Catharine of Sienna, all approached 
 the steps of the papal throne, adding to the eloquence of their sex and of 
 the cause they pleaded, certain heavenly visions which they alleged had 
 been vouchsafed them, all warning the Pontiff to return without delay 
 to Rome.' 
 
 At length Gregory XI. determined no longer to resist appeals so numerous 
 ■*nd so touching. He left Avignon on the 13th of September, 1376 ; 
 reached Rome on the 17th of January, 1377 ; and died there on the 27th 
 of March, 1378. His death was the signal for that long and bitter struggle 
 between the Italian and the French cardinals, between Italy and France, 
 between Rome and Avignon, which originated and perpetuated the fatal 
 Schism. 
 
 Of the sixteen cardinals, who had accompanied Gregory XI. to Rome, 
 and on whom now devolved the task of choosing his successor, only four 
 were Italians; eleven of the remaining twelve were Frenchmen, and one 
 was a Spaniard. The French influence greatly predominated; and a 
 Frenchman would, in all probability, have been elected, had not the Roman 
 people assembled around the conclave in great numbers, and clamored 
 vociferously,— That a Roman, or at least an Italian, should be nominated.’^ 
 Urged by motives of prudence or of fear,^ the cardinals acceded to the 
 wishes of the people ; and on the 9th of April, 1378, they selected a 
 Neapolitan, Bartholomeo di Prignano, archbishop of Bari, who took the 
 name of Urban VI. The vote was unanimous ; and the cardinals, for more 
 than four months, continued to acknowledge and to obey Urban as the 
 lawfully appointed Pope.^ During all this time, not a whisper is recorded 
 to have been heard about the invalidity of Urban’s election; not a ^ord 
 about the bodily fear which had seized on the electors, and trammeled their 
 freedom. 
 
 But Urban VI., whom all writers concur in representing as an humble, 
 pious, and disinterested man before his election, began soon afterwards to 
 act with a vigor, and even harshness, which greatly astonished his electors. 
 
 1 It is almost needless to remark that M. Bonnechose says not a word about all this preliminary 
 
 history. Here, as frequently elsewhere, his brevity is evidently studied. It was enough for Ais 
 philosophy, that the Schism really happened, no matter by what previous induences or train of 
 events; and it was enough for Ats purpose to intimate that the ambition of the Popes had caused it! 
 He knew, at least, that this flippant theory would satisfy the class of readers for whose tastes he 
 catered. * 
 
 2 According to most of the French accounts (see 1. et II. Vita Qregorii XI. apud Baluzium 1, 442 
 seqq. and Froissart’s Chronicles,) the election was not free, but brought about by popular commo¬ 
 tions and threats. Hut, according to the much more respectable and probable Italian accounts, the 
 choice was entirely free, and the popular commotion occurred in consequence of a misunderstanding, 
 a/igr the election had been already made, (see Theod. de Niem, L. I. c. 2. Baynaldus ad Annum 1378 
 —also L’Enfant, Hist. Cone. Pis. I. 7, seq.) 
 
 3 All grant this; even Leonardus Arretlnus, Flavius Blondus, Platina, and other sharp writerJ 
 .against the Popes. 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 179 
 
 As Theodoricus de Niem tells us,* *‘he began to rebuke the bishops who 
 flocked to Rome, calling them perjurers, because they had abandoned their 
 churches.” He then preached a sermon, “ in which he openly reproved 
 the vices of cardinals and prelates, which they took very ill.”^ The same 
 author relates the following characteristic anecdote : “ A certain collector 
 of moneys for the apostolic chamber came, about that time, from a certain 
 province into the presence of the said Urban, and offered him a small sum 
 of money as a remuneration for his office of collector ; to whom the Pontiff 
 said : ‘ Thy money be with thee unto perdition ; ^— and he would not receive 
 it.’” He adds that Urban, by doing “things similar to this, from day to 
 day, provoked against himself the anger of most of the cardinals and prelates;” 
 and that the subsequent Schism “ was caused more by the mutual rancor 
 of the parties, than by the alleged fear in the election of Urban.’” 
 
 We have been thus particular in our quotations from de Niem, because 
 he is a great favorite with M. Bonnechose, who refers to him in this very 
 place, but takes special care to suppress the testimonies which we have here 
 supplied. He furnishes only a garbled quotation, to prove the tyranny of 
 Urban, but he says nothing of the praiseworthy zeal which actuated the 
 Pontiff’. He can himself rebuke the pride and vices of cardinals and 
 bishops ; but if a Pope, in virtue of his office, dare do the same, his testi¬ 
 mony must be suppressed, and all that need be said in the premises is, that 
 he is a tyrant! Such is modern historic justice ! Now, we have no doubt 
 that Urban was a plain and blunt man, sincere in his zeal for the correction 
 of abuses, but often harsh and indiscreet in the manner of enforcing 
 obedience. The French cardinals could not brook his severity; they 
 remembered the comparative ease and comfort they had enjoyed in their 
 own country; and they determined at once to proceed to the election of a 
 Pope who would be more pliant and accommodating to their wishes, and 
 whom they might probably induce to accompany them back to France. 
 
 Accordingly, they left Rome under various pretexts, and met first at 
 Anagni, and then at Fondi, where, after having issued a manifesto remark-- 
 able only for its violence and its utter recklessness of truth, they declared 
 Urban an intruder into the papacy, and elected Clement VII. in his stead. 
 Thus altar was set up against altar, and Pope against Pope ! Europe was 
 divided in its obedience between the two claimants. All Italy except 
 Naples, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, England, Poland, and Prussia, 
 declared for Urban ; while France, Naples, Scotland, Savoy, Lorraine, and 
 subsequently Castile, Aragon, and Navarra declared for Clement. The 
 latter claimant soon betook himself to Avignon, where he placed himself 
 entirely under the overshadowing influence of FrancJe,^ 
 
 1 De schismate, 1.1, c, 4. 2 Id. c. 5. 8 Ibid. 4 Id. c. 7. 
 
 5 The chief difficulty in deciding between the two claimants, resulted from the different and contra¬ 
 dictory statements of the partisans on both sides. However, the most famous jurists of the day, 
 John di Lignano, papal vicar at Bologna, Baldus, professor in Perugia, and Jacobus de Sena, doctor 
 Bonon. pronounced Urban’s election valid (See Raynald. ad Ann. 1378, and Bulcp.us, Hist. Univ. 
 Paris.) St. Catharine of Sienna (ep. 31) expressed the greatest abhorrence for the revolted cardinals 
 whom she called dsemones humana carne induti—demons in human shape, 
 
 k 
 
180 THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 France might have extinguished the Schism at once, by refusing to 
 recognize Clement; but she fostered and perpetuated it with all her might. 
 It was through her influence that most of the kingdoms and provinces, 
 which acknowledged Clement, were induced to do so. She sent her ambas¬ 
 sadors every where, in order to extend the obedience' of the French Pope. 
 She urged all kinds of political motives, to induce the various states of 
 Europe to accede to her views; and she succeeded but too well in her 
 purpose. Slie had too long tasted the political advanUiges accruing to her 
 from the residence of the Popes at Avignon, to submit, without a struggle, 
 to their being permanently located in their own proper see at Rome. 
 
 Thus political ambition perpetuated, as it had caused, the great Schism 
 of the West. The Church was torn by schism, mainly through the intrigues 
 of secular princes. The reckless ambition of Philip the Fair, had origi¬ 
 nally dragged the papacy into captivity at Avignon, as we have already 
 seen; and the same reckless spirit now sought to renew and to perpetuate 
 this unnatural exile,^ at the expense of the peace and unity of Christendom, 
 It was, indeed, a most deplorable state of things ; a spectacle well calculated 
 to draw tears from the eyes of every sincere lover of the Church. But was 
 there no remedy for the evil ? 
 
 There was; and that remedy came, under God, chiefly from Franco 
 herself! This fact is as undoubted, as it is remarkable and honorable to 
 the nation, which has well merited the title of Most Christian ; and which 
 has ever been the most efficient champion of the papacy in the hour of its 
 greatest need. Had not the French university of Paris, the French 
 clergy, and, through their entreaties and influence, finally the French 
 government, thrown their influence in the scale of unity, we know of no 
 human means by which the Great Schism would, or could have been 
 healed. 
 
 Probably no other power in Europe could have effected' this object: 
 “Richard If., in England, and Charles VI., in France, were beo-innino- 
 
 • O O 
 
 their disastrous reigns; — in Spain, Italy, and Hungary, feeble or 
 ferocious despots alternately rose or fell. On no throne was there seated ' 
 a man capable of applying a remedy to the Schism, or of giving a salutary 
 impulse to Europe. One coilld almost have said, that an open field had 
 been left to the papal power, only that it might inflict on itself the most 
 terrible wounds,— as if it were of so indestructible a nature that its ruin» 
 could only proceed from itself.” ^ 
 
 Years rotted on ; the Schism still continued, and Pontiff still succeeded 
 Pontiff, both at Rome and at Avignon. The Church wept and sighed 
 for unity ; and the cardinals at each succeeding election were implored 
 to terminate the Schism, by coalescing with those of the other claimant, 
 
 1 The territory which acknowledged and obeyed a Pope, during the period in question, was called 
 by this name. Kor the active exertions of France in favor of Clement, see Prima Vita dementis V. 
 lin Baluzio I. 496 seqq ), and other cotemporary writers, passim. 
 
 2 The Italian.s are in the habit of comparing the sojourn of the Popes at Avignon to the seventy 
 years captivity of the Israelites in llabylou! 
 
 3 Bonnechose, Historical Introduction, etc., p. 11. The result proved, we apprehend, that the 
 papacy was indestructible, even by itself. 
 
ROME AND ^AVIGNON. 
 
 181 
 
 or by some other effectual means. The means they usually adopted for 
 this purpose proved very inadequate. It consisted in exacting of the 
 newly elected Pope an oath/ that he would do everything in his power, 
 and even, if necessary, that he would resign the popedom, to secure unity 
 to the Church. But a compliance with this oath was evaded under one 
 pretext or another ; and the Schism still continued. There seemed to be 
 no human remedy for it: it was like a circle which has no end. And this 
 very comparison was adopted by a cotemporary French preacher, the 
 famous Pierre aux Boeufs : — 
 
 “ To this circle do I liken the Schism, from the great similitude I 
 perceive between tliem. Alas ! does not the present Schism exhibit the 
 form of a circle, in which can be found neither end nor outlet ? Several 
 others there have been, but they were only semi-circles, whereof the end 
 could be found, and the issue arrived at. But in the present Schism we 
 find neither bottom nor shore.” ^ 
 
 In this conjuncture of afiairs, the university of Paris stepped forth nobly 
 to the rescue. Rendered illustrious by the talents and learning of the 
 famous Peter d’Ailly,— “ the eagle of France,” — and by those of his no 
 less distinguished disciple, John Charlier Geisou, the university was then 
 the first in Europe. Sustained by the French prelates and clergy, but 
 often thwarted and baffled by the intrigues and chicanery of the French 
 court, the university proceeded boldly and fearlessly to discuss the knotty 
 question of the Schism, and to devise means for bringing it to a happy 
 termination. 
 
 On the 6th day of June, 1394, fifteen years after the commencement of 
 the Schism, this learned body promulgated its famous opinion, in which 
 it recommended three methods of putting an end to tlie difficulty, and of 
 eecuring peace to the Church : a resignation by the respective claimants, 
 a compromise between them, or, both of these means failing, a general 
 council to pronounce definitively on the whole merits of the question. 
 The first method was most strongly recommended; the last was repre¬ 
 sented as a dernier resort, to remedy an otherwise incurable evil.^ The 
 university, at the same time, addressed a strong letter to Clement VII. at 
 Avignon ; who was not, however, much moved by its contents, and died 
 soon afterwards.'* 
 
 He was succeeded by the too famous Peter de Luna, who took the name 
 of B nedict XIII. This man at first promised much, but in the end did 
 nothing. To the earnest solicitations of the French national synod, 
 convened at Paris in 1395, he returned an evasive answer. Disousted 
 
 1 Tilts oath, in the case of at least one of the Avignon Popes, was rendered entirely nugatory bv 
 the condition annexed to it. ihar. the resignation should take place wlienever a majority of the 
 cardinals sltould deem it necessary. As the pope could multiply the cardinals at will, thi.s could 
 BCHicely ever be. 
 
 2 Cited by Bonnechose, Introd. p 13 
 
 8 See the opinion in full in Buloeus {Hi.st. Univ. Paris, tom. IV, p. 6S7 seq.) and in D'Achery, 
 (Spicileglum, 1, p. 776 seq.) 
 
 4 It is reported that Clement said of this letter, containing the opinion of the French university : 
 
 literae istae malae sunt et venenosao — This letter is evil and poisonous.” 
 
 u 
 
182 THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 with his tergiversation, France withdrew from his obedience in another 
 national synod, held in 1398. Castile soon followed the example, and the 
 refractory Pontiff was kept a close prisoner at Avignon. Every thing 
 seemed then in a fair way for a general peace. But de Luna was as adroi* 
 as he was obstinate. He seemed to yield to the wishes of the French 
 court, university, and clergy, and promised to do everything that was in 
 his power to promote the unity of the Church : and France once more 
 returned under his obedience} 
 
 Innocent VII., the second successor of Urban VI., the Roman claimant 
 of the papacy, having made a similar promise at his election in 1404, 
 negotiations were immediately opened between Rome and Avignon for 
 the purpose of bringing about a compromise. These consumed much 
 time, but ended in nothing. The failure caused general dissatisfaction ; 
 and France again threatened to withdraw from the obedience of Benedict 
 XIII. Meantime, Angelo Corario, under the name of Gregory XII., had 
 succeeded Innocent VII; and, impelled by the loud murmurs of France 
 and of the whole Catholic world, Benedict and Gregory arranged a 
 meeting to be held at Savona, in September, 1307. This meeting never 
 took place: every expedient was, on the contrary, resorted to to consume 
 time, and to prevent the interview.^ 
 
 Disgusted with all this paltry manoeuvering, as unworthy of both exalted 
 personages, and so much at variance with their solemn promises, the 
 cardinals on both sides abandoned them, met at Leghorn, and entered into 
 an arrangement to call a general council at Pisa, in March, 1409, for the 
 final settlement of the difficulty. The council met at the appointed time 
 and place. There assisted at it about two hundred archbishops and 
 bishops, besides twenty-four cardinals, and the ambassadors of all the 
 principal European kingdoms. 
 
 “ Never,’’ says M. Bonnechose, “ had such an imposing assembly been 
 seen in Europe, and never had any, from the number and quality of its 
 members, been so justly entitled to claim the name of an oecumenical 
 council.” ^ 
 
 We humbly beg his pardon: this is much more flippant than true. 
 The great council of Lateran, held at Rome under Innocent III., in 
 1215, was at least twice as large and imposing; and that of Vienne, held 
 under Clement V., in 1311, numbered, according to Villani, three hundred 
 bishops. Whether the Pisan Synod was strictly an oecumenical or 
 general council, we venture not to decide, not do we deem it very impor¬ 
 tant. It was convoked by neither claimant of the papacy, and its acts 
 were strongly condemned by both, as might have been anticipated. 
 Whether this defect was healed by the necessity of the emergency, or 
 
 1 A.D. 1403. 
 
 2 Leonardo Arrettino, a cotemporary, but a very sharp writer, and unsparing of the Popes, 
 humorously describes these expedients, by .saying that in arratiging the place of meeting, Gregory 
 scAintd like a land animal which dreaded the water, and Benedict, like an aquatic animal which 
 dreaded the laud 1 (.Apud .Maratori — Scriptores Kerum Italic, tom. xix, p. 926.) 
 
 8 P. 19. 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 183 
 
 not, we cannot say. It was an' extraordinary case; — such a one as had 
 never occurred before, nor has ever happened since.' 
 
 This council, guided by the counsels and eloquence of the two ablest 
 men of the day, Peter D’Ailly, bishop of Cambray, and John Gerson, 
 chancellor of the university of Paris, immediately cited both Pontitfs to 
 appear before it ; and, on their refusal to obey the summons, proceeded to 
 depose them as contumacious and schismatical; and immediately elected 
 in their place another, who took the name of Alexander V. After 
 adopting some measures for the reform of existing abuses, the synod was 
 dissolved by the newly elected Pontiflf. 
 
 The two deposed Pontiffs now hurled their anathemas at the heads of 
 those who had ventured to degrade them ; and each of them still had, 
 unhappily, some adherents. Spain and Scotland remained faithful to 
 Benedict XIII., while Naples, and a few of the smaller states of Italy and 
 Germany adhered to Gregory XII. Instead of two, the Christian world 
 now had three claimants of the papacy ! The council of Pisa thus left the 
 Church in a more deplorable state than it had found her ; and the Schism 
 was destined yet to cantiriue a few years longer, under still more 
 aggravated circumstances. 
 
 This state of things could no longer be endured. The Church rose en 
 masse; and the declaration went forth that the Schism must be terminated. 
 A voice proceeded from the university of Paris, which was re-echoed 
 throughout Christendom, that the Church must be reformed, “both in its 
 head and in its members.”^ John XXIII, the successor of Alexander V,, 
 who was considered to have the best claims to the papacy, was compelled 
 by the force of public opinion to convoke a general council at Constance. 
 The council was opened, according to all the forms prescribed by law and 
 usage, on the 5th of November, 1414. All were agreed that it was a 
 general council. 
 
 It was soon perceived by the assembled fathers, that the only means of 
 bringing about a permanent accomodation, was to induce or to compel all 
 three of the claimants to resign, and then to proceed to the election of a 
 new and undoubted Pope. A great difficulty arose at the very commence¬ 
 ment of the deliberations, in regard to the authority of the council of Pisa, 
 under the decrees of which John XXIII. claimed the papacy. After a 
 long debate, it was decided that the matter should proceed as though the 
 council of Pisa had never been held. John XXIII. was requested to 
 resign ; and fearing, it is said, an investigation into his moral character, 
 
 1 We believe the French writers more generally maintain that the Pisan council was a general 
 one ; and that the Italians defend the contrary proposition. By St. Antoninus and by Beliurmine 
 if is set down as doubtful: nec approbatuui nec improbatura, says'Bellartiiine though he 
 inclines to the opinion that the Pontiff named by it and his successor were true Popes. (De 
 Conciliis et Ecclesia, L. 1, c. 8.) It is not usually reckoned among the general councils by our 
 standard writers. 
 
 li This famous saying, so current at that period, had reference to the unnatural state of the 
 Schism, and to the moral and disciplinary disorders which had obtained, to a painful e.xtent. both 
 in tbe papal courts of Borne and Avignon, and among some of the cardinals, bi.shops, and inferior 
 clergy. It had certainly no reference to doctrine, or to the spiritual supremacy and prerogatives 
 of the Pontifif. 
 
184 
 
 THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. 
 
 which was none of the purest, he promised to do so, on the 2d of March, 
 1415. But nevertheless he fled' from Constance on the 21st of tlie same 
 month; and the council, after a formal and regular investigation, 
 pronounced against him the sentence of deposition on the 29th of May, 
 of the same year. On the 4th of July following, Gregory Xll. 
 voluntarily tendered his resignation to the council. 
 
 There yet remained one claimant, whom neither the entreaties nor the 
 menaces of the council could move; whom all the influence of the 
 emperor Sigismund could not turn from his purpose; whom the desertion 
 of Spain in January, 1416, could not shake; who was determined to be 
 Pope, even if all the world abandoned him, and he had no one left over 
 whom he might exercise the papal authority! This man was Peter de 
 Luna, calling himself Benedict XIII. Only one little Spanish town —• 
 Peniscola in Valentia—remaihed under his obedience; but the obstinate old 
 man still held out! He thus verified what Maimboui^g says of him : that 
 *‘he was furiously obstinate, beyond all that might be expected even from 
 an Aragonese.Nor did he at all heed the sentence of deposition pro¬ 
 nounced against him by the council of Constance, on the 26th of July, 1417, 
 
 Having thus, after nearly three years of patient labor and mature 
 deliberation, disposed of the three claimants to the papacy, the council 
 proceeded to the election of a new and undoubted Pope. On the 11 th 
 of November, 1417, the choice fell upon a noble Roman, Otto di Colonna, 
 who took the name of Martin V. All minds and all hearts united on him; 
 and his election was received with general joy and acclamations through¬ 
 out Christendom. The great Schism w’-as at an end : — for the obstinacy 
 of Benedict XIII. gained him not one new proselyte, and he died — Pope 
 of Peniscola — in 1424.^ 
 
 Such is a summary history of the Great Schism of the west. We have 
 endeavored to present the facts as w'e found them in the original records, 
 without concealment, fear, or favor. We fear not, — we lather court the 
 truth. Truth has never yet marred a good cause, nor materially served a 
 bad one. If the facts had been a hundred fold worse than they w^eie, we 
 would not have feared to state them fully, plainly, and without any disguise. 
 
 And now, we would ask, what does the history of the Great Schism 
 prove ? The first thing it proves to our minds, is, that the Church and 
 the papacy are alike indestructible and imperishable. Both the Church 
 and the papacy came out of the Schism, much stronger tlian tliey went 
 into it! The result fully proved that, even in the darkest hour of her 
 history,—when all boded division, destruction, death, — there was a 
 certain divinely reactive energy in both the Church and the papacy, 
 which caused both to ride the storm in safety, and to triumph gioriouslv 
 over a combination of evil elements, whicli would have destroyed any 
 merely human institution. The previous history of the Church had 
 
 1 He fled more than once. 
 
 2 llistoire du (Jr.-md ScliisTne, Liv. iii, p. 236. 
 
 3 He left, four Caidim.Ls, three of whom elected a Clement Vtll. as his succes.^or; the fourth 
 
 Benedict XIV ' Verily, the disciples were worthy of their master! ’ 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 185 
 
 proved, that she could triumph over external persecution and internal 
 heresy in all their most hideous and multiform assaults; this sad (hapter 
 in her annals proved that she could conquer a more dangerous enemy 
 still,— along and inveterate Schism rending her very bosom, and preying 
 upon her very vitals for nearly forty years ! The experiment was fairly 
 and fully made, under circumstances, too, the most unfavorable to her, 
 and its result has been her signal and permanent triumph. Surely such 
 an institution as this must be of divine oriain ! . 
 
 Nor let us be told that, during the Schism, the boasted unity and 
 infallibility of the Church were at an end. Unity of faith, of worship, 
 and even, in a certain sense, of government, was preserved, even in the 
 midst of the Schism. Those belonaina to different obediences did not 
 disagree in doctrine, even on the smallest article ; they worshipped at the 
 same altars, and in the same way; they all subscribed to the same doctrine, 
 that the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter, is the divinely appointed 
 visible head of the Church on earth. They merely differed on a question 
 of fact —which was the true and lawful Pope, or which had been regularly 
 and canonicallv elected? And so soon as this matter of fact could be 
 examined and decided on by the proper authority, the doubt ceased and 
 all immediately acknowledged and paid homage to the undoubted Pontiff. 
 
 That this fact could be, and was, definitely settled, is another proof of 
 the divine wisdom with which the Church was organized by her founder. 
 Uniil it could be determined. Catholics might, without compromising any 
 doctrine or principle, safely follow their ordinary guides, and yield 
 obedience to the individual, whom in their conscience they believed to 
 possess the best claims to the papacy.* 
 
 To make good their position, the adversaries of the Catholic church 
 should prove that, during the Schism, there was a change effected in the 
 doctrines universally received and held by the Church, before its com¬ 
 mencement ; or they ought to show, at least, that some of the old 
 doctrines were called in question. But can they establish this ? Can 
 they point to the bold innovator, whether Pope, bishop, or professor, 
 who ventured to take this stand? We defy them to do so. The truth 
 is, the Schism left all the doctrines, as well as the discipline, of the 
 Church intact, and just where it found them. 
 
 Nor is the contrary of this proposition established by the admitted 
 fact that, during the period in question, and for some time afterwards, 
 lon<»* and animated controversies were carried on in the Church itself 
 
 O 
 
 concerning the relations of Popes to general councils; the Italians 
 maintaining the pre-eminence of the Popes, the French that of the 
 general councils. The controversy was carried on under extraordinary 
 circumstances, when there were two or three claimants of the tiara at a 
 time ; and the assertion, by the council of Constance, of the superiority 
 
 lit was a maxim current iu tiiose troubled times, that “ a doubtful pope is no pope ” Papa 
 dubius est papa nullus;-which could only mean that none but un undoubted pope could claim au 
 ludoubted obedience, and the coneequent prerogatives of the papacy. 
 
 U2 
 
186 THE great schism of the west. 
 
 of a general council over the Pope, could have contemplated none other 
 than this anomalous state of things. A doubtful, pope might certainly be 
 brought under the action of the council; otherwise there could be no 
 remedy for the Schism. 
 
 Except in its application to this extraordinary case, the whole contro¬ 
 versy was really one of words, rather than about the substance. It was 
 agreed on all hands that a council could not represent the whole church, 
 nor therefore be general, without the concurrence and sanction, either 
 present or subsequent, of an undoubted Pope; and the controversy, if it 
 contemplated a council, with this condition essential to its oecumenicity, 
 amounted merely to the question, whether the Pope and council together 
 were superior to the Pope alone ! Even during the fiercest excitement 
 of the Schism, Catholics were unanimous in admitting the infallible 
 authority of a general council sanctioned by the Pontiff; — and this was 
 all that the Catholic Church ever taught on the subject, as an article of 
 faith. Thus there was really no controversy among Catholics on any 
 article of faith, or on any thing necessarily connected with one, even 
 during the Schism. 
 
 The adversaries of the papacy have greedily seized upon the fact, that 
 during several years there were rival claimants to the chair of Peter, to 
 show that the line of succession of the Roman Pontiffs was interrupted 
 or broken. The fact does not at all warrant this conclusion. In the first 
 place, it is highly probable, if not morally certain, from the facts already 
 stated above, that the Roman line, which began with and succeeded 
 Urban VI., comprised the only rightful claimants to the succession. The 
 election of Urban was recognized as regular and lawful by the whole 
 Church, and by the cardinal electors themselves, for more than four 
 months after it had taken place. The plea of want of liberty in the 
 choice, seems to have been an afterthought of the French cardinals, 
 and it was so regarded by De Niem.‘ Even after the Schism had been 
 consummated by the setting up of a rival claimant at Avignon, the great 
 majority of Christendom continued in the obedience of Urban. 
 
 But, in the second place, the integrity of the succession is not affected, 
 even in the improbable hypothesis, that the claims of the two rival lines 
 at Rome and Avignon are equally balanced, and that it remains doubtful 
 which was the lawful Pope. Even in this case, one or the other was 
 certainly the rightful incumbent: and it matters not which, so far as the 
 substance of the succession is concerned. If Urban was the lawfully 
 elected Pontiff, Clement certainly was not; 2 l\\i\ vice versa. The line of 
 Roman Pontiffs remained unbroken in either hypothesis. The doubt 
 affected persons, but not the thing itself. The objection then falls to the 
 ground; and the boasted argument, alleged by the enemies of the papal 
 succession, will not bear the slightest test of logic. 
 
 Still more puerile is the objection against the. succession, based on the 
 fact, that for about seventy years the Popes resided at Avignon. During 
 
 1 Quoted ubuTe. 
 
ROME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 187 
 
 all this period, they were universally recognized, and they constantly 
 acted through their vicars, as Bishops of Rome. The holding of an 
 office does not require residence in the incumbent, when he can other¬ 
 wise discharge the duties annexed. The matter of residence is one of 
 discipline, more or less important; it is not indispensably connected with 
 the episcopal office, much less can it affect the papal succession. 
 
 Both these' objections are predicated on superficial or erroneous ideas 
 of the subject. They will not bear logical scrutiny. They vanish before 
 the first touch of logic, as mists before the rising sun. 
 
 Protestant historians are unanimous in painting the moral condition 
 of the Church as truly frightful and appalling, during the continuance 
 of the Schism. We do not deny that there were, at that time, some 
 grievous abuses and wide-spread disorders. We freely admit, and we 
 weep over these scandals. They were deplored and sternly rebuked by 
 the greatest and best men of the time; the great body of the bishops, and 
 the Church at large, never approved of them;—no, not for one moment. 
 The various national synods of France, and the councils of Pisa and 
 Constance, not only condemned these evils, but they adopted wise and 
 strong resolutions to remedy them, and to reform the Church “in its 
 head and in its members.” The Church is surely not fairly responsible 
 for scandals which she deplored, over which she wept, which she took 
 every possible means to prevent and to remove, and which she did 
 effectually abolish. 
 
 But every impartial man will admit that there exists much exaggeration 
 on this subject. During those dreadful times men’s minds were greatly 
 excited, and their blood boiled with honest indignation at the desecration 
 of holy things, which they were daily called on to witness. Hence they 
 wrote strongly, and often in a tone of hyperbole and exaggeration. Their 
 invectiv'es auainst vice and scandal were commensurate with their love for 
 the Church. Even the great Gerson often exaggerated, and sometimes 
 dealt in declamation and open extravagances. His preceptor, the illustrious 
 Peter D’Ailly, archbislwp of Cambray, though more cool and judicious, 
 was likewise occasionally betrayed into ultraism. And as to persons of 
 less intellect, sanctity, and standing in the Church,— such as Theodoricus 
 de Niem, Nicholas de Clemangis, Leonardo Aretino, Cramaud, and 
 others,— they wrote and spoke under the evident influence of strong 
 Bxcitement and passion. No one can open their works without coming 
 vO this conclusion. The adherents and partisans of the different papal 
 claimants naturally spoke with great harshness and bitterness of those 
 belonging to the opposite party : they often seized upon malicious rumors 
 and published them as facts : local they magnified into general disorders ; 
 in a word, their imagination was fired, and their passions inflamed, and 
 their statements are to be received with many grains of allowance. The 
 evils growing out of the Schism were bad enough — they made them 
 appear much worse than they really were. 
 
 But, exaggerated as is the history of those times, drawn by the cotem- 
 
188 
 
 THE GREAT SCHISM Ou XHE WEST 
 
 poraries to whom we have just alluded, such modern writers as Bonnechose 
 make the picture a hundred fold darker, by disingenuously accumulaLing 
 only those extracts from cotemporary writers which portray evils and 
 scandals, and studiously leaving out those which speak of eminent virtues, 
 of edifying examples, and of touching incidents. They put to the lips of 
 their readers only the bitterest ingredients — the very dregs—of the cup 
 of history ; they allow them to sip none of its cooling and refreshing 
 waters. And they even cut up and garble the passages, which they 
 profess to give entire and continuous ! M. Bonnechose, as we have 
 proved, makes a practice of doing this. 
 
 If he wished to tell the whole truth, and to be a historian indeed, why 
 not furnish his readers the facts on both sides of the question ? Why not 
 inform them that, if there were great vices, there were also signal virtues, 
 during the Schism ? Why not, at least, drop a hint that there were great, 
 and good, and holy men and women, in great numbers too, and pre-emi¬ 
 nent in merit and sanctity, during that whole unfortunate period ? Why 
 omit entirely the name of the great apostle of that era,— of the Paul, and 
 the Francis Xavier of the fourteenth century,— of the great, the eloquent, 
 the sainted thaumaturgus, St. Vincent Ferrer ? Why not say a word of 
 the holy Catharines and Bridgets ? Why omit all mention of many others, 
 similarly distinguished ? 
 
 The truth is, that the moral disorders which prevailed to a considerable 
 extent during the Schism, instead of proving aught against the sanctity or 
 infallibility of the Church, or against the authority and rightful prerogatives 
 of the papacy, prove precisely the contrary. They may be fairly traced 
 to the unnatural and anomalous condition of the Church, growing out of 
 the distracted condition of the papacy, the great directing and conservative 
 principle of the Christian religion. Had the papacy not been divided, had 
 •t remained untrammeled and unchecked in its influence, those disorders 
 would, in all probability, never have occurred, or they would have occurred 
 in a much milder and more mitigated form. If the Church was so much 
 injured by the crippling of the papacy during not quite forty years, what 
 would have been her condition had the papacy been entirely and 
 permanently destroyed ? And* what would noio be her state, without this 
 great conservative element in her organization ? 
 
 We repeat it, the moral disorders consequent on the great Schism of the 
 west present to our minds the strongest proof of the great utility, nay, of 
 the absolute necessity, of the papacy, as an element of Church government! 
 
 This naturally leads us to notice a popular objection, or rather cavil, 
 which is usually stated somewhat in this way: If the Church could do 
 without the papacy for forty, why not for two thousand years ? The 
 
 answer is very plain. We deny both the antecedent and the conclusion,_ 
 
 the fact assumed, and the inference thence drawn. 
 
 During the Scliism, the papacy existed, though the territory over which 
 it held jurisdiction was divided. All maintained the necessity of a visible 
 head of the Church, and of but one head, or chief executive ; hence .the 
 
HOME AND AVIGNON. 
 
 189 
 
 struggles of the contending parties for tlie mastery; hence the continued 
 efforts of all the good to find some way of escaping from the Schism. At 
 no period of the Church’s history was the importance and necessity of the 
 papacy more clearly recognized or more deeply felt. All acknowledged 
 the obligation of obedience to the Pope ; all bowed down before th^ 
 principle ; the only difference was in regard to a matter of fact, which the 
 passions of men had rendered for a time obscure. 
 
 But even admit the antecedent,—-that the church did do without the 
 papacy for forty years,— the conclusion,—that therefore it could do 
 without it for two thousand,— would not follow. This is a fallacy, which 
 logicians call “ reasoning from particulars to generals and it has about 
 as much weight as this parallel sophism ; A man may do without food for 
 one day ; therefore he may do without it for forty years! 
 
 The same fallacy lurks under another popular objection, which we may 
 as well also briefly notice. It is this : If the council of Constance, 
 convened and presided over by no undoubted Pope, could settle tho 
 affairs of the Church without papal authority, where is the need of tho 
 papacy at all ? 
 
 We test the validity of this reasoning, by putting a parallel case. 
 Suppose the contingency should arise,— and it is certainly a possible 
 case,— that a presidential election in our republic should turn out to be of 
 doubtful issue, and that each of the two great political parties should 
 claim that its candidate was duly elected. After much political agitation, 
 and various attempts at adjustment, the matter comes before congress for 
 final adjudication. It is settled, we further suppose, by requiring both 
 the claimants to resign, and ordering a new election. All parties acquiesce 
 in this wise arrangement, and the political schism is at an end. Now 
 suppose further that some political wiseacre should rise up, and cry out: 
 “ What is the use of having a president at all ? If congress can regulate 
 affairs without him, why not abolish his office altogether.” No sensible 
 man would deem anything more than a smile necessary as an answer to 
 such reasoning. 
 
 Why is it that men, usually so shrewd in temporal matters, become 
 apparently almost bereft of the reasoning faculty, when it is a question of 
 assailing the Catholic Church, and the papacy ? The Church and tho 
 papacy after having braved the storms and revolutions of eighteen centuries, 
 can surely emerge triumphantly from the ordeal of such logic as this ! 
 The fact that the enemies of the Church are driven to use such arguments 
 as these, furnishes a clear evidence, that, even in their own estimation, 
 their cause is as weak as that of the Church is strong. If the Church and 
 the papacy had not both been the work of God, they never could have 
 passed through so many difficulties and vicissitudes unharmed. 
 
 There can be no doubt, that, as we said above, the papacy came out of 
 the Schism much stronger than it went into it. It went into it trammeled 
 with political importance, and worldly grandeur, whicli impaired the 
 energies and dimmed the splendors of its spiritual character. It came out 
 
190 
 
 THE GREAT SCHISM OP THE WEST. 
 
 of it in a great measure rid of these incumbrances : shorn of a great portion 
 of these accidental trappings, but indued, more strongly than ever, with 
 the impenetrable panoply of its own spiritual strength. Christendom now 
 revered and loved it more than ever : it was more in conformity with its 
 i[)rimitive type ; it had returned to its original position in the world. It 
 was tried by the Schism, as by a fiery ordeal. It emerged unscathed, and 
 more pure, radiant, and vigorous than ever. The “ wood and stubble ” 
 of its earthly pomp and wordly-mindedness were consumed by the fire ; 
 but the gold, silver, and precious stones ” of its spiritual power and 
 heavenly strength yet remained. It sujffered loss indeed, but itself “ waa 
 saved yet so as by fire.*' ^ 
 
 11 Corinth, iii, 12-16. 
 
X. JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES 
 
 THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE.* 
 
 New trials lead to new triumphs of the Church—Character of John Huss—A traitor in the camp— 
 
 Seeking popularity—VVickliffe and his doctrines—These necessarily lead to civil commotions_ 
 
 Translated into Bohemia—University of Prague—The German and Bohemian students—Carthage- 
 nian hatred of Rome—Writers on Huss and his disciples—Persecution no Catholic tenet—Imperial 
 laws on the subject—What were the doctrines of Huss?—And what their influence on society? 
 —What means did he adopt to spread them?—Was he consistent?—Had he a fair trial at Con¬ 
 stance?—Was the council cruel towards him?—Were the fathers guilty of breach of faith?_ 
 
 Keeping faith with heretics—Case of Jerome of Prague—Horrible excesses of the Hussites—Ziska 
 “ of the Cup”—Pillage, murder, and sacrilege—A horrid martial instrument of music—A dark and 
 bloody monument to the memory of Huss. 
 
 In the very midst of the great western schism — when all Christendom 
 was overspread with gloom and desolation,— and when, humanly speaking, 
 the very existence of the Church itself seemed to be menaced; — a dark 
 and threatening cloud gathered in Bohemia, and soon burst upon her, in one 
 of the most terrific storms that she had ever experienced during the long 
 course of her history. Torn and distracted within, she was, at the same 
 time, fiercely assailed by a bold and truculent heresy from without ; as if 
 Divine Providence, in permitting these dreadful evils to fall simultaneously 
 upon her, had meant to make trial of her strength, and to prove triumph¬ 
 antly to the world her innate stability and indestructibility. 
 
 With every odds against her; with her energies divided and broken; 
 with the papacy — the great controlling and conservative element of her 
 government — itself seemingly in jeopardy ; she was still to behold her all- 
 conquering banner wave in triumph over all her enemies, both external and 
 internal; and she was to witness, in this her signal triumph, one more 
 conclusive proof, in addition to the thousand which her history had already 
 afibrded, that Christ was still faithful to His solemn pledge,— “ the gates 
 of hell SHALL NOT prevail against her.’’ 
 
 The annals of the world tell of few men more remarkable than John 
 Huss. The forerunner of Martin Luther and John Calvin, he united the 
 boldness and indomitable energy of the former, with the coolness and 
 fierce malignity of the latter ; while he, perhaps, surpassed both in firmness 
 and obstinacy of purpose. Born of poor and obscure parentage, in the 
 
 *An introduction to “ D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation.” The Reformers 
 before the Reformation. The Fifteenth century. John Huss and the council of 
 Constance. By Emile de Bonnechose, librarian of the king of France, author of 
 “ Histoire de France,*’ “ Histoire Sacree,” &c. Translated from the French by Camp¬ 
 bell McKenzie, B. A., Trinity College, Dublin. Complete in one volume, 8vo., pp 
 199. New York: Harper & Brother, 1844. 
 
 191 
 
192 
 
 JOHN IIUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 » 
 
 IT 
 
 small village of Hussinecz jn Bohemia, in the year 1373, we find him, in 
 Ills thirtieth year, a professor in the famous university of Prague, confessor 
 of the queen of Bohemia, and preacher at the chapel of Bethlehem.* 
 Bold, energetic, talented, and sprightly, he soon rose to distinction, and 
 acquired an almost unbounded popularity. As professor, he fascinated the 
 youth Avho flocked to his lectures 'by the boldness of his views, and the 
 startling novelty of his theories. As confessor to the queen, he exercised 
 great influence over her mind, and over that of her weak and imbecile 
 husband, Wenceslaus ; and he became all powerful at court. As a popular 
 preacher, he had few rivals, and no superior, in all Bohemia. 
 
 Such was the man who was soon to rear the standard of revolt against 
 the Church, to maintain doctrines subversive of social order, both civil 
 and religious, and to light up in Bohemia a flame, which was to be extin¬ 
 guished only in the blood of thousands of its citizens ! Had he continued 
 faithful to the truth; had he devoted his life and talents to the cause of 
 religion and social order; had he studied to allay, instead of exciting, the 
 elements of discord already fermenting in the minds of men, and especially 
 in those of his fierce and semi-barbarous countrymen, he might have been 
 one of the brightest ornaments of his age and nation, and one of the strongest 
 pillars of the Church. As a priest of the Catholic Church, he had, at the 
 holy altar, solemnly plighted his faith to become, and to continue her 
 advocate and faithful champion until death : — her cause was his cause ; 
 her truth his truth ; her joys were his joys ; and her sorrows his sorrows. 
 If ever she needed a champion, now was that time ; if ever she needed a 
 comforter in her grief, this was the season. 
 
 But alas ! instead of comforting her, and laboring to assuage her grief, in 
 this the most bitter hour of her affliction, this sworn minister of her altars, 
 who had broken bread with her in unity and in .sweetness of communion, 
 now basely deserted her, and treacherously lifted up his heel against her 
 holy sanctuary ! He preferred the ephemeral popularity attending the 
 advocacy of bold and startling novelties, to that less brilliant and enticing, 
 but more solid and permanent glory, which results from the humble, and 
 unostentatious championship of old and uninviting, but wholesome truths. 
 Like many other men of great talent and genius, but seduced by secret 
 pride, he preferred the fame which attaches to the founder of a new sect, 
 to that which he might have acquired by pursuing the even tenor of his 
 way, and doing much good, in a quiet manner, in the venerable old paths 
 of truth, marked out and hallowed by the footsteps of his sainted forefathers 
 in the faith. 
 
 He wished, in a word, to become in Bohemia, what Wicklifte had so 
 recently been in England. The bold English reformer — the redoubtable 
 captain of the Lollards,— had died quietly and in peace^ in the year 1384, 
 in his own rectory of Lutterworth; but, in dying, he had bequeathed a 
 
 1 Founded in the year 1391 by two wealthy citizens of Prague, Johann Von Muhlheim and th« 
 merchant Kreuz ; and destined especially for the preaching of the gospel to the poor. 
 
 2 In spite of ail the alleged cruelty and persecuting spirit of the Catholic Church. 
 
TUB COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 193 
 
 fatal legacy to posterity in his writings.’ These abounded with virulent 
 attacks upon the ministry, doctrines, and institutions of the Catholic 
 Church, — of which Wicklifte was nevertheless a priest,—and with prin¬ 
 ciples as new as they were pernicious. 
 
 Many of his assertions were downright blasphemies against the Deity; 
 such as those of his propositions which asserted absolute predestination and 
 fatality, and, among the rest, this atrocious one— “ God ought to obey the 
 devil! Many of them consisted of bitter and baseless tirades auainstthe 
 clergy and the Popes : such as that which designated “ the Roman Clmrch 
 a synagogue of Satan and those which stigmatized as lieretics, all cler¬ 
 gymen who held any species of property, as well as tliose who bestowed it 
 on them.^ Others railed against the monastic orders as “ diabolical and 
 unchristian and against colleges and universities, as “pagan in their 
 origin” and “devilish” in their tendencies.® Others, in fine, openly 
 broached and defended doctrines directly subversive of all social order, both 
 in Church and state ; such as those which maintained that a bishop and a 
 civil magistrate lost all power and jurisdiction, the moment they fell into 
 grievous sin This last may be reckoned the distinctive doctrine of Wick- 
 iiflfe’s whole system ; the one to which the civil commotions and bloodshed 
 subsequently caused by his disciples, the Lollards, are fairly traceable. 
 
 Such were the leading features of that iniquitous system, which was now 
 to be transplanted from England into Bohemia, and to produce in tlie latter 
 country the same bitter and poisonous fruits which it had brought forth in 
 the former. A noble Bohemian, Jerome Faulfish, more commonly known 
 as Jerome of Prague, had visited the famous university of Oxford, in 
 England, for the purpose of completing his education. There he became 
 acquainted with the writings of Wicklifte, which he perused with avidity 
 and delight. On his return to Bohemia, about tlie year 1402, he brought 
 several copies of them with him, and busily circulated them among the 
 professors and students of the university of Prague. Thoroughly imbued 
 himself with the doctrines of the English apostate, he labored with 
 unremitting zeal to infuse his own convictions into the minds of others.. 
 He succeeded but too well in his purpose ! 
 
 The university of Prague was divided and thrown into confusion. A 
 rivalry had long existed in its halls between the German professors and 
 students, and those of Bohemia : but hitherto the Germans had maintained 
 the ascendency, both in numbers and in influence. The tables were now 
 turned. John Huss adopted and defended with great vigor the doctrines 
 of Wicklifte, and was soon followed by nearly all the Bohemians belonging 
 to the university ; the Germans as ardently maintained the old principles 
 of religion and philosophy, and denounced the new opinions as both 
 
 1 The wor.st of these was his Trialogus, written after his retirement from Oxford to Lutterworth, 
 and shortly before his death. It embodies, in the form of a conference among three persons, all his 
 virulence, all his distinctive doctrines, and all the worst features of his system. 
 
 2 Deus debet obedire diabolo. — Prop, vi, among those condemned by the council of Con.stance. 
 
 3 Prop, xxxvii, ibid. 4 Prop, xxxvi. 6 Prop, xxiii and xxxi. 6 Prop. xxix. 
 
 7 Prop. XV, Nuliu* est dominus civilis, nullus est prmlatus, nullus est episcopus, dum est in< 
 peccatomortali. 
 
 V 
 
 16 
 
194 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 heretical and ruinous in their tendency. Novelty, however, gained the 
 day; the Germans were expelled from the university, John Huss and his 
 adherents became supreme therein, and tliey were thus enabled to teach 
 and to spread their new-fangled notions, almost without opposition.* 
 
 The infection soon spread throughout Bohemia. The ignorant and the 
 vicious were pleased with the new doctrines, and were fascinated with the 
 boldness and eloquence of the man who poured forth, in his own chapel 
 of Bethlehem, and throughout the kingdom, his coarse and withering 
 invectives against the Popes, the bishops, and the clergy. The standard 
 of revolt was now raised; and all Bohemia was in a flame. The dreadful 
 sequel is but too well known. 
 
 It is fashionable with such writers as M. Bonnechose to praise extrav¬ 
 agantly, and to exalt even to the skies, men who,—like John Huss,— 
 fiercely opposed the Catholic Church, and raised altar against altar. We 
 are not at all surprised at this. Men naturally sympathize with those of 
 a kindred spirit. No matter how wicked the founders of new sects may 
 have been ; no matter how reckless, inconsistent, and unprincipled; no 
 matter what commotion they excited, what hatred they stirred up, what 
 torrents of blood they caused to flow ; if they only opposed Rome, all their 
 iniquities are at once forgiven and forgotten, and they are painted as 
 saints, as heroes, as martyrs, as men who preferred the voice of their 
 conscience to all the smiles of the Church and of the world ! This fierce 
 and more than Carthagenian hatred of Rome, like the mantle of charity^ 
 covers a multitude of sins. John Huss and Jerome of Prague are 
 represented as men entirely in advance of their age ; as men who had the 
 courage to rebuke the vices and errors of a corrupt and all-powerful 
 ^church; as men who fell victims to their noble zeal and integrity, and to 
 the vengeance of the hierarchy ! 
 
 M. Bonnechose evidently follows the accounts most favorable to Huss 
 and the Hussites.^ If he examined at all the authorities on the other side, 
 his readers are in a great measure deprived of the fruits of his researches. 
 If he sometimes quotes JEneas Sylvius and John Cochloeus, it is rather to 
 keep up a semblance of impartiality, or to confirm some statement in favor 
 
 1 We have gathered these particulars from a distinguished cotemporary, Sylvius — His- 
 
 toria Bohemorum, c. 35 He says that the Bohemians were then “ by nature ferocious and 
 indomitable — natura ferocibus atque iiidoinitis.'’ Ho adds that Wickliffe’s new doctrines were 
 spread by Huss, chiefly with a view to vex the German professors, and to oust the Germans from the 
 university — “ Wyclevitarum doctrinam arripuit eaque Teutonicos vexare magistros coepit,fperan8 
 eo coiifusos Teutones scholas relicturos.” 
 
 2 The chief authorities on the history of John IIuss and the Hussites are the following : In favor 
 of John Huss, a voluminous work, composed by an a7io7iy7noM5 Hussite, and entitled: Historia et 
 monunienta Jo. Huss atque Ilierouymi Pragensis — Norimbergse : 1715, tom. ii, in folio. This work 
 is a special favorite with M. Bonnechose, who quotes it on all occasions. Against IIuss; jEnece 
 Sylvii — De Bohemorum origine ac gestis historia, (llomee : 1475, fol.), especially chaps. 35 and 36 ; 
 and Johannes Cochleeus — Historia Hussitarum, Libri xii. (Moguntiae : 1549, folio.) To these add 
 
 'a host of more recent writers, especially in Germany, chiefly in favor of Huss ; such as Theobaldus— 
 De Bello Hussitarum, in 4ti> ; Wilhelmi Seyfridi — Do Jo. Huss martyris vita, fatis, ac scriptis, 
 Jenae : 1729, etc. \ J F. W. Fischer, life of Jerome of Prague, and Zitte’s life of Huss, both written 
 in German. See also Lahbcri Concilia—Concil. Constant.; Hardt — Constant Concilium, &c., vl 
 
 tom. folio; UEnfant — Ilistoiro du Concile de Constance, tom. ii; and Castenet _Nouvelle Hist 
 
 duConcile de Constance, Paris : 1718, 4to. 
 
,THB COUNCIL OP UONSTANCE. 
 
 195 
 
 of Huss, than to exhibit fairly and fully the facts and evidence on both 
 sides. When his favorite partisan work — “ the History and Monuments 
 of John Huss and Jerome of Prague,” — fails him, he calls in to his aid 
 dhe veracious John Fox, the English martyrologist, whom he quotes with 
 as much complacency, as if he had been a cotemporary historian, and as 
 if he had never written accounts of the cruel deaths and martyrdom of 
 living men. Such is the general character of M. Bonnechose’s work, 
 which, with some pretensions to erudition and impartiality, is aproduction 
 as thoroughly partisan as ever was written. We think no candid man 
 who reads it, and compares its statements with those of the original 
 historians, can come to *ny other conclusion. 
 
 We are sincerely opposed to all persecution. Catholics have been too 
 long and too cruelly the victims of it, to relish it; no matter by what 
 specious reasoning or pretext its advocates may have sought to palliate or 
 justify it in any particular case. The sentence of death pronounced and 
 executed on John Huss and Jerome of Prague was much more the result 
 of the spirit of the times in which the deed was done, than of that of the 
 Church: it was the consequence of imperial, rather than of ecclesiastical, 
 enactments. All this we hope to make appear in the sequel, by such a 
 mass of evidence as the candid inquirer can neither resist nor answer. 
 
 The Catholic Church has never persecuted, as a Church, for mere 
 conscience sake. She has, indeed, at all times freely and fearlessly 
 exercised her undoubted prerogative of proclaiming the truth, and of 
 stigmatizing error ; of witnessing and authoritatively pronouncing on the 
 
 faith once delivered to the saints.” She had been instituted for this 
 express purpose ; and well and fully has she fulfilled her mission. Ko 
 -matter how adverse the circumstances under which she labored ■ no 
 matter what clouds und storms gathered around her pathway ; she was, at 
 all times, too thoroughly imbued with the meek and humble spirit of her 
 divine Founder and Spouse, to call down fire on the heads of her enemies. 
 She could suffer without a murmur ; she could not witness, much less 
 inflict suffering on others, without a pang. Her whole history through 
 eighteen long centuries, if impartially examined and fairly stated, will fully 
 bear out this view of the subject. 
 
 Nor does the case of John Huss and Jerome of Prague constitute an 
 exception to this general remark. Their melancholy death, as we have 
 already intimated, was the result of imperial laws, not of Church decisions. 
 It was the emperor Sigismund, and not the fathers of the council of 
 Constance, who sentenced them to death. The council merely condemned 
 'the doctrines of Huss, ordered the books containing them to be burnt,* and 
 deposed him from the ministry as an unworthy and heretical priest p it was 
 the emperor Sigismund who condemned him to death, in accordance with 
 the settled law of the Germanic empire. 
 
 1 Those who affect to he .“caiidiilized at this are referred to the example of Sfc. Paul, who caused a 
 multitude of bad books to be burnt at Cphesus — Acts, eh. xix. 
 
 2 M. Bounechose himself is forced virtually to grant this. See pi. 102, where ho gives the 
 eubstanca of the two sentences pronounced by the council. 
 
196 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 Even M. Bonnecbose, bow much soever be strives to implicate tbe' 
 council,' is still constrained to admit this. He tells us that tbe emperor, 
 at the close of Huss’s examination before the council, irritated at the 
 obstinacy of the man, whom neither he nor the council could induce to 
 retract, thus addressed the assembled fathers in his presence : 
 
 “You have heard the errors which this man has taught — many of 
 which are crimes deserving of the severest punishment. My opinion, 
 therefore, is, that, unless he abjures everyone of them, he ought to be 
 
 burned to death.If any of his followers should happen to be at 
 
 Constance, they ought also to be severely put down, and chiefly, amongst 
 them all, his disciple Jerome.” 
 
 As we shall see in a passage to be cited hereafter, he had pronounced 
 a similar opinion at the opening of the examination. 
 
 For nearly two hundred years before the council of Constance, it had 
 been a settled and organic law of the Germanic empire, that heresy was 
 punishable with death. At the famous convention held at Roncaglia, in 
 Italy, in the year 1158, the emperor Frederic Barbarossa had revived the 
 provisions of tlie old Roman imperial laws, as modified and acted on by 
 the first Christian emperors. He had revived them with all their abso¬ 
 lutism and all their persecuting spirit. His grandson, Frederic II, went 
 still farther. In the year 1244, he added specific and terrible laws against 
 heretics. In the new code, blasphemy and heresy were put on a level with 
 high treason ; and, like it, were to be punished with death. It was thought 
 by the law that heresy was rebellion and high treason against heaven ; and 
 that a man who was a traitor to his God, could not be a faithful subject to 
 his earthly sovereign. 
 
 The Church had at least no direct agency in enacting this odious code. 
 She seems to have merely acquiesced in its enactment. She could not, in 
 fact, have well done otherwise ; for the two Frederics were men of stern and 
 inflexible resolve; — tyrants whom no influence could either tame or control. 
 During the time of the early Christian emperors, the Church had often 
 been herself the victim of a similar stern and grasping legislation. She 
 had seen her best Pontiff's and bishops dragged into exile, and condemned 
 to death by the iron will of imperial tyrants, who took it upon themselves 
 to decide what was truth, and what was heresy, and to enforce their decision 
 with terrible penalties.^ 
 
 The condemnation to death, then, of John Huss and Jerome of Prague 
 at Constance, was no new thing. It was done in accordance with a settled 
 principle of law, long established and generally recognized. No one 
 questioned its existence, or doubted its justice, either at tliat time, or for 
 many centuries afterwards ; not even those who fell victims to its exercise. 
 All the early reformers adopted and defended the self same principle ; and 
 
 1 Many of his assertions on this subject need confirmation, other than his own bare word, and 
 that of his partial authorities. 2 P. 96. 
 
 S Witness the cases of the Pontiffs Liberius, Silrerins and St. Martin L; and of the holv prelates, 
 St. lillary, of Poictiers; Ste Athanasius, of Alexandria; St, John Chrysostom, of Constantinople, and 
 of many others. 
 
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 197 
 
 the punishment by death at tlie sbike, for heresy, was retained in Protestant 
 England longer than in any other country in the world.* 
 
 Even John Huss himself, as we shall show more fully in the sequel, was 
 not only well aware of the existence of this law, ere he departed from 
 Prague for Constance, but he freely-consented to be judged by it, and to 
 abide its penalty, if convicted of heresy. At Constance itself, on being 
 accused of having denied its justice, he repelled the accusation, and only 
 remarked : “the heretic cannot be corporeally punished, until after he has 
 been charitably instructed, by means of arguments drawn from Scrip¬ 
 ture a qualification which, with the exception of its implying the right 
 of private interpretation in opposition to Church authority, few would have 
 felt disposed to question, even in that stern age. The Church may, then, say 
 in reference to the death of Huss and Jerome : — Non mea culpa est, sed 
 temporum. It was not her fault that they died at the stake ; the sacrifice 
 was made in accordance with the jurisprudence of the age. 
 
 But before we can subscribe to the opinion that Huss was a saint and a 
 martyr, and that the council of Constance acted a cruel and treacherous 
 part by him, we must have more evidence than the bare word of such 
 flippant writers as M. Bonnechose, and the partisan historians whom he 
 quotes. We must go into the whole merits'of the case, and examine the 
 following previous questions: 
 
 1st. What were the doctrines of John Huss, and what were their effects 
 on society ? 
 
 2d. What means did he adopt to spread them ? 
 
 3d. Was he always equally bold in avowing, and consistent in maintain¬ 
 ing them ? 
 
 4th. Had he a fair trial at Constance ? 
 
 5Lh. Did the council act with wanton cruelty in his regard? 
 
 And 6th. Was the council guilty of perfidy and treachery towards him? 
 
 We shall endeavor briefly and succinctly, but, we, hope, clearly and 
 satisfactorily, to answer all these questions. And we will assert nothing 
 which cannot be clearly proved from undoubted and original sources, 
 cotemporary with the events themselves. 
 
 I. What were the doctrines of John Huss, and what were their effects 
 on so(dety ? 
 
 His doctrines were the same as those of Wickliffe, of which we have 
 already spoken; with this important difterence, however, that the Bohemian- 
 does not appear to have gone so far as the English reformer. Huss 
 admitted to the day of his death many distinctive doctrines of Catholicity 
 which Wickliffe had rejected : such as the real presence, the sacrifice of 
 the mass, the power of granting indulgences, and some others. But, in all 
 other respects, he seems to have agreed almost entirely with Wickliffe, 
 though he was, perhaps, less furious, and more cautious, in expressing his 
 opinions, than the bluff and sour Englishman. Like him, he railed inces- 
 
 1 Instances of this cruel punishment occur iii England as late as the reign of George the I,! See 
 PJetirher’s notes to De Maistre’s “Letterson the Spanish Inquisition.” 
 
 2 Bonnechose. p. 94. 
 
 V2 
 
198 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 santly against the Popes, the bishops, the clergy, the religious orders; like 
 him, he maintained the doctrine of absolute predestination; like him, he 
 believed that none but the elect belonged or could belong to the Church 
 of Christ; like him, he maintained that it was unlawful for the clergy to 
 liold property of any kind; like him, he denied the infallibility of the 
 Church; and, like him, he asserted the ruinous principle,— ruinous to all 
 social organization, whether political or religious,— that the circumstance 
 of a temporal or spiritual ruler being in the state of mortal sin, deprived 
 him, by the very fact, of all power and jurisdiction.* 
 
 He also openly denied the power of the Church to excommunicate or to 
 suspend her ministers, and boldly defended the disorganizing doctrine, 
 that a priest thus excommunicated, provided he believed the sentence 
 unjust, could still continue to exercise his functions, in spite of the prohi¬ 
 bition by the ecclesiastical tribunal. He more than once intimated that 
 St. Peter never had been the head of the Church ; that the Roman Pon¬ 
 tiffs had derived their supremacy from the Caesars ; and that there was no 
 need of a visible head of the Church on earth. That such were the dis¬ 
 tinctive doctrines of Huss, we think no one who has at all read the orio-inal 
 documents will be disposed to deny.^ 
 
 Who can wonder, that doctrines so thoroughly disorganizing should 
 have produced the most disastrous effects on society ? Who can wonder 
 that Prague soon became the theatre of bitter contentions, of civil com- 
 mbtions, of infuriate mobs, of bloodshed ? Who can wonder that all 
 Bohemia was thrown into convulsions; that its hills and valleys were 
 crimsoned with the blood of its own citizens ; that a civil war, the most 
 obstinate and bloody, perhaps, recorded in the annals of history, tore 
 and lacerated its bosom, and sent tens of thousands of its citizens to 
 the tomb? ' 
 
 - All these terrible disasters were as natural and necessary results of the 
 preaching and doctrines of John Huss, as fruits are of the tree which bears 
 them, or as smouldering ruins are of the dreadful conflagration. John Huss 
 enkindled a flame in the bosom of his country, which preyed on its very 
 vitals, and threatened it with utter annihilation, for long years after he 
 was himself no more! 
 
 That Huss was a bold and turbulent spirit; that his doctrines naturally 
 tended to insubordination, revolt, and sedition; and that he not only took no 
 ■precautions to check this sinister tendency, but encouraged it father, and 
 fanned the flame of popular excitement, we think no candid man will denv. 
 That the effects indicated above did follow his preaching and doctrine, 
 even M. Bonnechose, his most ardent and unscrupulous champion, fully 
 
 1 See ttie propositions extracted from the works of Huss and condemed by the Council of Con* 
 stance ; — not as M, Bonnechose gires them on the authority of Fox (!) — but as they are recorded 
 in the acts of the council itself; especially Propositions i, ii, v, xxi, and xxx. See also Bonnechose, 
 p. 91, where he tells & part of the truth in regard to the doctrines of Huss. 
 
 2 See the propositions, in loco sup. cit. M. Bonnechose admits that Hus.s advocated most of those 
 doctrines; but his account is often very vague and inaccurate. Instead of giving us, in one place, 
 a well-dige.'Sted summary of the doctrines of Huss. he scatters the account of them througnout the 
 book ; and he evidently seeks to disguise or conceal their very worst features. 
 
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 199 
 
 admits. We will allege a few facts and passages from his work to illustrate 
 this branch of the subject. 
 
 Sbinko, the archbishop of Prague, the declared opponent of Huss and 
 of his doctrines, had perished by poison ; and a rumor was already afloat 
 in the community, that he had come to his death through the malice of the 
 Hussites. Our author assures us that this report was unfounded in fact; 
 but he speaks 'of the excitement which raged at Prague, about this time, 
 in the following language ;— 
 
 “ But, at Prague, the question no longer was to clear up a fact, which 
 could be to one party a deep disgrace, and to the other a motive of ven¬ 
 geance ; the Jlames of civil war were gathering at the bottom of men's 
 hearts, and the rage of parties no longer required a real cause for bursting 
 forth, but only a pretext. It was impossible not to acknowledge the moral 
 authority,— the very serious ascendency,— which John Huss had acquired 
 over men’s minds ; for no longer were the caprices of fashion, or an incon¬ 
 siderate infatuation, sufficient to gain over partisans or disciples for his 
 doctrines,” &c.‘ , 
 
 ■ i 
 
 This tremendous excitement between the two hostile parties, composed 
 of the friends and opponents of John Huss at Prague, soon broke out into 
 open sedition, filled the streets with mobs and desolation, and drenched 
 them w;itli blood ! Huss had been compelled to fly, but he now returned, 
 and placed himself, with renewed vigor and deternaination, at the head of 
 Jiis partisans. , The magistrates of the city, foreseeing the coming troubles, 
 besought him to desist; but they besought in vain. 
 
 “The magistrates of Prague,” says our author, “blamed John Huss, 
 and joined with the heads of the university, the court, and the clergy 
 against him. So many elements of discord,” he continues, “portended 
 fresh troubles of a more serious character than those which had already 
 caused the voluntary exile of Huss, but no apprehension shook his 
 resolution.” ^ 
 
 With his characteristic obstinacy he persisted, and he could not be 
 turned from his course, either by expostulation or by apprehension of the 
 dreadful consequences about to ensue. He put up placards on the doors 
 of the churches and monasteries of Prai»ue, challenaiiiir all doctors, 
 
 O ^ ^ O O ' 
 
 priests, monks, and scholars to a public discussion. We will transcribe 
 M. Bonnechose’s account of what passed at this discussion : 
 
 “ On the appointed day, the concourse was prodigious ; and the rector; 
 in alarm, endeavored, though in vain, to dissolve the assembly. A doctor 
 of canon law stood up and delivered a defense of the Pope and the bulls: 
 then, falling on John Huss, he said,— ‘ you are a priest; you are subor¬ 
 dinate to the Pope, wiio is your spiritual father. It is only filthy birds 
 which defile their own nests ; and Ham was accursed for having uncovered 
 his father’s shame.’ At these words the people murmured and were in 
 great commotion. Already were stones beginning to fly, when John Huss 
 interfered and calmed the storm. After him the impetuous Jerome of 
 
 t 
 
 1 I’. 36 The real authors of the death of Archbishop Sbinko are utiknown. It wag natural, 
 however, thar suspicion should have rested on the disciples of lluss, of whom ho was au opcu and' 
 declared adversary. 2 1’ 41. ' 
 
200 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 Prague addressed the multitude, and terminated a vehement harangue 
 with these words :— ‘ Let those who are our friends unite with us ; Huss 
 and I are going to the palace, and we will let the vanity of those indul¬ 
 gences be seen.’ ” * 
 
 In short,— not to multiply quotations which would take up too much 
 of our space,—John Huss and Jerome of Prague placed themselves at 
 the head of a tumultuous rnobj filled the city with confusion, openly defied 
 the authorities ; and, as if to make this mob more like that which lately 
 disgraced one of our eastern cities, desecrated the Sunday by marching, 
 with arms in their hands, on that day, to the town-house to demand the 
 pardon of three rioters, who, having been arrested by the authorities, were 
 there confined. On the appearance of John Huss with his formidable mob 
 at the prison gates, 
 
 “ The mao-istrates deliberated in trouble and consternation, and the 
 council replied, in the name of all : ‘ Dear master, we are astonished at 
 your lighting up a fire, in which jou run the risk of being burned 
 yourself. It is very hard for us to pardon persons who do not even spam 
 the sanctuary, who fill the city with tumult, and who, if not prevented, 
 would stain our streets with slaughter. Nevertheless, keep the people 
 within bounds, and withdraw: your wishes shall be attended to.’ ” ^ 
 
 But when the rioters had withdrawn at the bidding of Huss, the 
 magistrates thought proper to break a promise extorted from them by 
 threats and fear; and the prisoners were executed. When the mob 
 became acquainted with this fact, 
 
 “ A furious tumult arose. The doors of the prison were burst open, the 
 bodies taken off, and transported in linen shrouds under the vault of the 
 chapel of Bethlehem. They were there interred with great honors, the 
 scholars singing in chorus over their tomb,— ‘ They are saints who have 
 given up their bodies for the gospel of God.’ ” ^ 
 
 Huss was the ringleader in all these tumultuous and lawless scenes : 
 and he even pronounced the eulogy of these ruffian rioters and convicted 
 felons, whom he styled “saints and martyrs.”'* On that memorable 
 occasion, in the midst of the most tremendous popular excitement, he, a 
 minister of the God of peace, fanned the flame, by pronouncing a most 
 furious tirade of abuse and invective ag-ainst the Popes, the clergy, and 
 the Church.^ The result was awful; mob violence ruled supreme and 
 uncontrolled in the hitherto peaceful city of Prague; and our author 
 himself assures us, that 
 
 “ All men’s minds seemed in a blaze : the city was daily the theatre of 
 sanguinary scenes ; there was no longer security at Prague for personal 
 safety; —even the king himself thought* it best to take his departure, and 
 hurried from place to place.” ® 
 
 1 l*. 41. 2Id. p. 42. 8 Ibid. 
 
 4 Ibid When charged with this at the council of Constance, Huss did not deny it.— Id. p. UG. 
 
 6 Ibid. p. 42. 
 
 6 I’. 43. It requires no stretch of fancy to observe an almost exact parallelism between the riots 
 .at Prague, and tho.se which recently occurred at Philadelphia Uuiuau nature and human passions 
 fire ever the same. 
 
TllK COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 201 
 
 Such, then, were the immediate effects of Huss’s preaching and 
 doctrines in Prague. At no distant day, as we shall shortly see, these 
 disasters were to be extended, aggravated a hundred-fold, to all Bohemia. 
 But we are tired of these atrocities, and must hasten on in our investigation. 
 
 II. What means did IIuss adopt to spread his doctrines ? 
 
 This question will not detain us long. It is easily answered. M. 
 Bonnechose, in fact, answers it for us. Huss formed and increased his 
 party, by strongly appealing to the passions of the ignorant, by delivering 
 violent and inflammatory invectives against the Popes, the bishops, and 
 the clergy; by exposing, and by offering to redress, the grievances of the 
 poor; and by a certain boldness of tone, fixedness of purpose, and rough 
 eloquence, which just suited the mobs whom he addressed, and which 
 made him the idol, because they constituted him the leader and champion, 
 of the multitude. His party once formed, he kept it together, and swelled 
 its numbers, by his indomitable energy and untiring industry, and by his 
 exciting and maddening harangues. By affecting zeal for the correction 
 of abuses, and putting on a sanctimonious air, he succeeded in winning to 
 his standard many of the pious and well disposed, whose simplicity did not 
 penetrate beyond the exterior veil which covered his real purpose ; whilst, 
 by appeals to the avarice of kings and princes, he succeeded in inducing 
 many of these also, either to become his partisans, or, at least, to remain 
 neutral. We will present a few extracts from our author, to establish such 
 of these assertions as are not manifest of themselves, or as have not 
 been already proved; 
 
 “ Huss had, besides, against his enemies, the powerful support of the 
 nobility, several members of whom were sincerely touched by the elevation 
 and purity of his doctrines, whilst a great number adopted them, either 
 through a spirit of opposition to the court, or through jealousy towards the 
 high clergy, or through the hope of sharing in their spoils.’* ' 
 
 But Huss soon took effectual means to silence the opposition of the court 
 itself. He knew the weak point in the character of the imbecile Wences- 
 laus ; and he stopped not at anything to win him over to his party. Let 
 us auain hear M. Bonnechose : 
 
 “ Some of Huss’s opinions, particularly that which he borrowed from 
 Wicklifle, respecting titles and church property, were exceedingly to the 
 taste of Wenceslaus. ‘ Secular lords’ he used to say, ‘ have the power of 
 taking away, whenever they please, their temporal possessions from such 
 ecclesiastics as live in habitual sin.’ {They were to judge).Wen¬ 
 
 ceslaus adopted those doctrines,— which were those of the greater portion 
 of the reformers, and which rendered many princes favorable to them. 
 He, therefore, set himself up as the arbiter of the employment of church 
 propei'ty ; but, as lie cared nothing wh.atever for the poor, it was into his 
 strong-box that the ill-employed riches of the clergy found their way ; and 
 when lie openly came forward an 1 supported the new opinions, his 
 severity and his exactions swelled John Buss’s party. Several wealthy 
 ecclesiasf ics declai-ed themselves Hussites ; for, with a view to save their 
 
 1 P. 10. 
 
202 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 propertyy they adopted the doctrines which enjoined a good employment 
 -of it/’ ‘ 
 
 These, are, indeed, precious avowals, coming, as they do, from a warm 
 .eulogist of Huss, and a sworn enemy of Catholicity. They could have 
 been extorted from him only by the sternest evidence of truth. Now, 
 can any one, for a moment, persuade himself that a m^n who resorted to 
 such means, could have been either a saint or a martyr ? Saints and 
 martyrs are made of different stuff altogether. It is not the mere circum¬ 
 stance of dying for a cause which makes a martyr, but it is the justice, and 
 the holiness, and the truth of ' the cause itself.^ Could that man be 
 reckoned a martyr, wlio was the leader of armed and infuriate mobs, who 
 made maddening appeals to the most grovelling passions, who fanned into 
 a wild conflagration the flames which himself had liglited up in the bosom 
 of his country, and who reveled amidst the ruins which himself had caused ? 
 We think not. 
 
 III. Was John Huss always equally bold, and consistent in maintaining 
 his doctrines ? 
 
 Obstinacy was, indeed, his characteristic trait; but yet, obstinate as he 
 was, he was most certainly a very different character at Prague and at 
 Constance. At Prague, he was bold, daring, reckless; at Constance, he 
 was cautious, rCvServed, and comparatively timid. At Prague, he boldly 
 announced his doctrines and defended them with an overpowering 
 popular eloquence ; at Constance, he modified, concealed, or openly 
 denied them. At Prague, he was the fearless religious demagogue; at 
 Constance, he was the wily and tortuous heresiarch. We defy any one to 
 read M. Bonnechose’s history attentively, without being forcibly struck 
 with this remarkable falling off,— this singular inconsistency in one who 
 is yet held up to our admiration as a saint, a martyr, and a stainless 
 reformer of God’s holy Church. 
 
 Our narrow limits, and the important matters we have yet to examine, 
 will not permit us many details on this subject. Besides, the thing is too 
 plain to need much proof; and we refer with great confidence to the 
 statements of our partial historian himself. Whoever will reail and 
 compare even his imperfect account of Huss’s sermons and works® in 
 Bohemia, with that of liis defence of himself and of his doctrines at 
 Constance, must be persuaded that, while Huss was the bold and declared 
 enemy of the Church in the former place, he wished to pass for one of her 
 faithful and obedient children in the latter. This inconsistency and this 
 paltry manoeuvring are acknowledged and remarked on by M. Bonnechose, 
 who is sadly puzzled how to account for the anomaly. Hear what he 
 says on the subject: 
 
 1 I*. 41i-3. 2 Martyreui facit non poena, setl causa,— is an ada};;**, as true as it i.s old. 
 
 3 Especially his work ‘‘ on the Church,” and his pamplilet: “The Six Errors ” The first ” of 
 these error.s was that of the iiriests who boasted of making the body of Jesus Christ in the mass, 
 and of being the creator of their creator.”— Uonnechose, p 45 Yet at Constance, he openly asser¬ 
 ted the real prer^ence, and took God to witness tliat he had never taught any ihiiur ai;ainst it! See 
 lb. p 90. seqq. This is but one, out of many, of the inconsi.stencies and contradieiious of iluss. 
 Cf also pp. 43, 45. with pp. 90, 104, 105, &c. of our author. 
 
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 203 
 
 ■ “He (Hiiss) protested his attachment and respect for the Qatholic 
 Church: he declared his unwillingness to separate from it, and yet 
 unknown to himself (!), he was giving a sensible shock to its foundations, 
 by maintaining that believers had the right to examine its decrees before 
 they submitted to them. Who does not perceive that, on the one hand, 
 obedience to a Church which declares itself to be immutable and 
 infallible, and, on the other, examination and appeal to an internal cri^ 
 terion — the conscience — are two things contrary to each other and 
 incompatible ? It would he a difficult thing to affirm that John Huss 
 believed that he could reconcile them, or that he had supposed that he had 
 succeeded in the task. We can not, indeed, comprehend how he could 
 have deceived himself on this point. Yet it is most certain that he 
 attempted to effect an agreement between these two hostile principles, and 
 that he thus carried in his bosom the germs of a violent struggle, at once 
 irreconcilable and interminable. That was the formidable and insolvablo 
 problem, which agitated his life and hastened his end,”‘ &c. ; 
 
 We must furnish another curious extract from our author on the same 
 subject. It occurs in the closing paragraph of the chapter in which,he 
 treats of the death of Huss; and it is valuable, as presenting his views of 
 the general character of the reformer; i 
 
 “As to the right of the matter, before he (Huss) admitted that any_ 
 proposition was heretical or false, he required to have its falsehood 
 demonstrated by Scripture. This was to recognize in the divine word, 
 interpreted by private judgement, an authority superior to the decisions of 
 the Church — it was to attack the clergy in their spiritual authority. . . 
 Strange destiny of Huss! Most curious problem! In his way of 
 thinking, all separation from the old trunk of the Church is a lieresy 
 worthy of hell; and yet the separated churches reckon him, with piide, 
 amongst their martyrs !.John Huss considered himself a Cath¬ 
 
 olic, and yet he appealed from the Church to his conscience and to God I 
 He was a Protestant without knowing itP^'^ 
 
 We confess that we can not believe that Huss was so simple. He was 
 not such a goose^ as this theory would make him appear. The truth is, 
 he had taken a wrong step, and he felt it; he occupied a false position, 
 and he did not wish to leave it. He h^d a strong and clamorous party to 
 sustain him: he was their leader and head; they hung upon his lips, and 
 they could be led like children by his words. He Jelt that he could not 
 retract without displeasing his party, on whose praises he had been so 
 long accustomed to feast: he had not the humility nor the moral courage to 
 go back : he would rather die first; — for, in this case, he would be hailed 
 as a martyr, and he might live with posterity. He had evidently more 
 regard for his party than for the truth. Had he been a solitary man, 
 without a part}'-, he never would have mustered courage to die at 
 Constance. Such at least is our candid opinion ; and we think we do 
 him no injustice. 
 
 1 1*. 2 P. 106. 
 
 3 Hush i.s Bohemian for goose; and Huss himself often punned on his name. See Boni.echose, p. 
 86, iio(e. So then if we err, eitlier in tasr.e or in politeness, we do it not without an illustrious pre¬ 
 cedent. It is remarkable, also tliat the family name of .Jerome of 1‘rajjue. Faul/isit, means a, foul 
 Jisk. \t least, the names of both of the Bohemian reformers were ominous. That of Jerome, 
 however, was much more appropriate than that of Huss. 
 
204 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 IV. A still more important question, is — had Huss a fair trial a* 
 Constance ? 
 
 We sincerely believe that he had; and to prove it, we need no othei 
 vouchers than the facts of the case,— apart from the false coloring and 
 unfair construction,— as given by M. Bonnechose himself. The following 
 facts are certain and undoubted. 
 
 1st. John Huss went to the council of Constance, of his own accord, 
 in voluntary obedience to the summons of the emperor Sigismund, and 
 with the avowed purpose of answering the charges of his enemies, and 
 proving that he had said and written nothing against the Catholic faith. 
 He often boasted, even before the council, that he had come to Constance 
 of his own free will; and that had he chosen to remain in Bohemia, his 
 powerful partisans there could have concealed and protected him, even 
 against the king of Bohemia, and his more powerful brother, the emperor 
 Sigismund himself.' Before his departue from Prague, 
 
 ‘‘ In a paper affixed to the gates of the palace, he announced that he 
 was about to depart, in order to justify himself before the council. ‘So 
 that,’ said he, ‘ if any one suspects me of heresy, let him proceed thither 
 and prove, in presence of tlie Pope and the doctors, if I ever entertained 
 or taught any false or mistaken doctrine. If any man can convict me of 
 having inculcated any doctrine contrary to the Christian faith, / will 
 consent to undergo all the penalty to which heretics are liable.’ &c. 
 
 2d. After he had arrived at Constance, he had three different hearings 
 from the council; and the investigation into his doctrines and writings 
 was full, lengthy, and detailed. Though the weighty affair of the schism, 
 and much other most perplexing business, pressed heavily on the council, 
 yet the assembled fathers consented to go into a minute and patient 
 examination of his doctrines, article by article, and to hear his answer to 
 each of the charges preferred against him. Nothing could be fairer, or 
 more in conformity with law and usage, than the whole order of the 
 proceedings. His books were first produced, and he was asked whether 
 they contained his genuine writings. Then his accusers, among whom 
 the principal were his countrymen, Stephen Paletz and Michael Causis, 
 stood forth in open court, and distinctly uttered their charges against 
 him ; and many witnesses were summoned to corroborate their testimony. 
 John Huss had the privilege of answering all the accusations separately; 
 and, though there seems to have been, once or twice, some murmuring 
 in the assembly, owing to the exciting nature of the inquiry, yet the 
 whole trial was generally conducted with calmness and with temper.^ 
 
 3d. When John Huss denied the truth of many of the articles alleged 
 airainst him, and maintained that he had never taus^ht the doctrines with 
 which he stood charged, the accusations were made good by a regular 
 course of testimony,— by the oath of men who had heard him preach in 
 Prairue and Bohemia, some of whom had been his intimate friends,' and 
 
 1 Se« M !$onnecho.se, p. 92. 2 Ibid, p. 49. See also p 57 
 
 3 All'hie is admitted by >I Bonnecho.se, p. 89 seqq. For the excirement in tlie council, which 
 be certainly <:reatly exajtserates, we have little more evidence tnan his bare word. 
 
 4 As, for instance, Paletz. 
 
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 205 
 
 all of whom were men of integrity and above suspicion. AfWr this 
 formidable array of evidence, the Cardinal of Florence, Gabarella, might 
 well address Huss as follows : 
 
 “Master John Huss, you must know that it is written, that what is in 
 the mouth of two or three witnesses must be considered a veritable 
 testimony. Now here are twenty persons worthy of confidence, who 
 declare that you have preached this doctrine which is imputed to you. 
 The greater number of them adduce, in support of their assertions, 
 unanswerable proofs: — is it possible that you defend yourself aorainst 
 them all ?” ‘ 
 
 4th. It was in vain that John Huss appealed to his God and to his 
 conscience against all this testimony. Such an appeal would have been 
 received against such evidence in no court of justice. It was a question 
 of fact, and not of mere conscience ; and the cardinal could well answer : 
 “ we cannot decide after your conscience, but on clear and well established 
 evidence.” ^ Besides, his chief accusers, Paletz and Causis, also appealed 
 to their God and their conscience, in proof of their sincerity, and of the 
 truth of their charges : 
 
 “ Paletz then rose up and cried out: ‘ I call God to witness, in presence 
 of the emperor and the sacred council, that I have said nothing here 
 through hatred to John Huss, nor through any malevolent feeling, and that 
 I have not set myself up as the adversary of so many errors, but through 
 zeal for the Catholic church.’ Michael Causis repeated the same oath.”^ 
 
 In view of all these unquestionable facts, it must be admitted that John 
 Huss had a fair trial, and that, if he was convicted, it was solely by the 
 force of evidence. He had appeared voluntarily before the council; he 
 was a priest of the Catholic Church, and, therefore, was fairly amenable 
 to her authority; he maintained that he was still a true Catholic, and that 
 he had said no word, written no sentence, done no deed, against the Catholic 
 faith ; he challenged an investigation, and declared that he was willing to 
 abide its result; it was a question of fact to be decided by evidence ; 
 evidence, strong and overwhelming, was produced ; he answered it by an 
 appeal to his conscience; the appeal was not legitimate and could not be 
 admitted , he was convicted of erroneous doctrines under all these circum¬ 
 stances : — and where is the man, we would ask, not wholly blinded by 
 prejudice, who will still say that he was not lawfully convicted, or that he 
 had not a fair trial ? 
 
 V. But we must pass on to the next inquiry: — did the council of Con¬ 
 stance treat John Huss with wanton cruelty ? 
 
 We answer, without hesitation, in the negative; and we think we can 
 sustain our answer by facts, much stronger than the mere declamation of 
 those who, for the last four centuries, have been in the habit of constantly 
 reiterating this charge. Nor will it require much time or space to establish 
 our proposition. 
 
 As we have already sufficiently proved, neither the Church, nor especi 
 
 1 Sec M. lionnechose, p. 91 
 
 w 
 
 2 lb. p 91. 
 
 3 P. 96. 
 
206 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 ally the council of Constance, made the law by which heretics were liable 
 to be punished with death. It had been enacted two centuries before by 
 the German emperors ; and they alone,— and not the council of Constance, 
 — were fairly responsible for it and for its results. It was the emperor 
 Siofismund and the elector Palatine, and not the fathers of the council of 
 
 O 
 
 Constance, who passed sentence of death on Huss.* It was the magis¬ 
 trates of Constance, acting under the direction of the two high functionaries 
 just named, who presided at his execution. After having convicted him 
 of heresy, and excommunicated and degraded him frohi his priestly office, 
 the council expressly declared that it had no power to proceed any farther 
 against him.^ According to a fixed and standing law of the Catholic 
 Church,— a law embodied as an adage^ in the canon law itself, and strict 
 and universal in its application, — the council could proceed no farther. 
 
 Before the council pronounced judgment on the doctrines of Huss, 
 the emperor Sigismund had already declared to him, in presence of the 
 assembled fathers, that, by a standing law of the empire, heresy was pun¬ 
 ishable with death; and he had added, that, unless Huss would retract his 
 errors, he would, with his own hands, be ready to liglit up the fire which 
 would consume him.'* Huss himself, as we have seen, was well aware of 
 this law ; he openly admitted its justice before the council itself; and in the 
 placards he had put up in Prague and on his journey to Constance, he had 
 declared his readiness to submit to its hard penalty, in case he should be 
 convicted of heresy.® 
 
 Had the council thirsted for the blood of Huss, would it not have been 
 eager to exact the punishment ordained by the imperial laws ? Would it 
 not have loudly clamored for his execution ? The acts of the council, 
 however, state nothing of the kind ; but they do state, and M. Bonnechose 
 himself admits the fact, that the fathers did every thing in their power to 
 rescue Huss from death, by laboring to persuade him to make at least a 
 modified retraction of his errors. No effort was spared to bring about this 
 result; the only means, then known to the laws, by which he could be 
 saved. Formulary after formulary of retraction was submitted to him; 
 embassy after embassy was sent: cardinals, bishops, his own chief accuser 
 Paletz, the emperor himself, with tears in their eyes, urged and entreated 
 Huss to retract. But arguments, entreaties, tears, were all lost on the 
 •obstinate and immovable Bohemian. Huss was inflexible. He could have 
 escaped death; but he rushed into its jaws.® 
 
 ’ ' Nor let us be told that Huss could not retract, without sacrificina: his 
 conscience. He may have been conscientious : but, from what we have 
 
 1 Fiddes and Dr. Brown Willis, English Protestants, both candidly admit that if there was any 
 blame in the matter, it attached, in all fairness, to the emperor alone. See Life of Card'l. iVolsey, p 
 137. L’EnfantaLso admits it, though a Calvinist, llist. Cone. Const. L. iii, $48. 
 
 2 See Acts of the Council, Sess. xv. 
 
 3 Ecdeaia abhorret a sanguine. No clergyman was allowed to shed blood, even as a surgeon, much 
 less to pronounce directly or indirectly, sentence of death on any one. 
 
 4 L’Enfant,/oco citato, § 8. 
 
 6 In addition to the authorities already (quoted, {supra) see L’Enfant Liv. 1, $ 21, and L. iii, $ 7. 
 
 6 See, for proof of all this, Honnec^iose, pp. 95, 97, 98, 99. 
 
,THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 207 
 
 seen of his character, there seems to have been more of false pride and of 
 sheer obstinacy, than of conscience in his whole conduct. He had already, 
 in open council, disavowed nearly all the errors imputed to him; he had 
 condemned the most obnoxious principles of WicklifFe ; he had sought to 
 prove himself a thorough and obedient Catholic. He had declared, over 
 and over again, that he had never taught the doctrines ascribed to him, as 
 he said, by his enemies, through sheer malice and calumny ; and yet he 
 would not retract them ! And he based his refusal on the ground, that if 
 he did retract them, his opponents would say that he had taught them ! 
 The emperor Sigismund answered this quibble, as follows: 
 
 ' ** What can you fear in abjuring all these articles ? For my part, I have 
 
 no hesitation in disavowing all kinds of errors; but does it follow that I 
 have entertained them?”‘ 
 
 The emperor himself, after all other means had failed, sent a commission 
 of four bishops, with some of the principal ^friends of Huss, to persuade 
 him to submit. Huss wished to argue with them ; not to acquiesce quietly 
 in the decision of the council. “ Do you, then,” said one of the bishops, 
 “believe yourself wiser than the whole council?”^ Huss evaded this 
 searching question by an appeal to the Scriptures and to his conscience, 
 and by a professed willingness to be taught “in the divine word by the 
 least person in the council! Here, then, was the real issue : — private 
 judgment against Church authority. This was the true secret of his 
 obstinacy. And this overweening pride and obstinate self-will were greatly 
 encouraged by John de Chlum and his other partisans at Constance.^ 
 
 Had the principles of Huss been merely speculative and harmless; had 
 they not struck at the very foundations of all social order; had they not 
 already produced their legitimate effects of seditions and bloodshed in Bohe¬ 
 mia; we think that, notwithstanding his obstinacy, he might yet have been 
 spared. At least, in that supposition, we would feel much more strongly 
 inclined to sympathize with him. But with all these unquestionable facts 
 in view, we cannot, at least, coincide with those who would fain exalt him 
 to the rank of a saint and a martyr. 
 
 VI. But the most weighty charge against the council of Constance 
 remains yet to be examined: — did the council act perfidiously towards John 
 Huss ? 
 
 That the council decoyed John Huss to Constance under the faith and 
 protection of a safe conduct; that it then decreed his death in spite of 
 that plighted faith ; and that, to sustain this perfidious course, it openly 
 sanctioned the principle that “no faith is to be kept with heretics;” these 
 are charges so often made by prejudiced and ignorant writers, and so often 
 and so triumphantly refuted from the history and acts of the council itself. 
 
 1 See M. Bonnechose. p. 95 " Ibid, p. 99. 2 Ibid. 
 
 4 Much has been .said and written about the imprisonment of Huss, and tiie cruelties inflicted on 
 him in prison. But was he not permitted to correspoud with his friends, and even to write whole 
 treati,«e8 in prison ? And did not he himself thank his keepers for their humanity and good treat 
 ment? (See Bonnechose, p. 104) 
 
JOHN HUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 :i08 
 
 that we are much pleased to find so prejudiced a writer as M. Bonnechoso 
 abandon them altocrether.‘ This is some evidence that truth and ffood 
 
 O O 
 
 sense are beginning at length to resume their sway in the world. 
 
 This implied admission will release us from the necessity of going into 
 lengthy details on this branch of the subject. But as our author intimates 
 in more places than one, that the emperor Sigismund violated the safe 
 conduct which he had given to John Huss as he garbles the safe conduct 
 itself, and as he omits many important facts and misstates others, we may 
 be pardoned for furnishing a brief exposition of the whole case. * 
 
 First, then, it is altogether certain that the council of Constance never 
 gave a safe conduct to John Huss at all, and, therefore, that it could not, 
 by possibility, have violated any faith plighted to him. This fact no one 
 will or can deny. 
 
 2. It gave, indeed, a safe conduct to Jerome of Prague ; but that 
 instrument merely guaranteed to him protection in coming to Constance, 
 and in defending his doctrine while there ; but it expressly stipulated, that 
 this protection was not meant to prevent his conviction, if guilty, or to 
 frustrate the due course of law.^ Besides, M. Bonnechose admits, that 
 this safe conduct did riot reAch Jerome before his arrest by the civil officers 
 in the Black Forest, while he was flying from Constance ; and that, by a 
 necessary inference, he could not properly claim the privileges which it 
 granted.^ Thus it is apparent, that there could have been no breach of 
 faith on the part of the council, in regard either to Huss or to Jerome. 
 
 3. The safe conduct granted to John Huss by the emperor Sigismund 
 was evidently a mere traveling passport, intended to protect him from 
 indignity, detention, and outrage, on his journey from Bohemia to 
 Constance, but not, by any means, to protect him from the consequences 
 growing out of the due course of law. Huss never solicited nor even 
 expected any such exemption, and the emperor could never have meant to 
 grant anything of the kind. With an imperial document guaranteeing so 
 wide a protection as this, what was the use of Huss’ journey to Constance ? 
 What was the meaning of his boast, made at Prague and on the journey, 
 that he went to Constance of his own accord, to defend himself ao:ainst the 
 charge of heresy, or to abide its penalty ? There would have been no 
 object whatever in his visit, and the whole affair would have been a 
 solemn mockery and a ridiculous farce. Does a passport given now-a-days 
 secure the bearer from legal prosecution and conviction ? Or was a 
 passport ever known, in the whole history of the world, to grant this 
 species of exemption ? If not, then why extort this absurd meaning from 
 that granted by Sigismund to John Huss ? 
 
 The clause — “to return,” <fec., was evidently a mere form usual in 
 similar instruments, and the whole document, with all its details and legal 
 
 1 At least if M. Bonnechose says expressly any thing of the kind, it has entirely escaped our 
 notice The only hint on the subject we have observed is found on p. 61, and that is not entirely 
 clear or explicit. 
 
 2 M. Bonnechose admits this, though he ascribes unworthy motives to the council. The 
 
 modifying clause was salva justitia, p. 73. 3 Ibid. 
 
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 209 
 
 forms, marks il as a mere passport. Huss had many violent enemies in 
 Germany, which he was compelled to traverse on his way to Constance. 
 'I'he German students, whom he had caused to be expelled from Prague, 
 bore him a mortal grudge ; and it was to secure his person from tliese 
 enemies, and to facilitate his journey, that the safe conduct was given.’ 
 It could have had no other object. 
 
 4. The emperor himself gave precisely tliis explanation of the meaning 
 attached by him to the safe conduct, in a public address delivered before 
 tlie council of Constance, in the presence of Huss and Iris friends, and his 
 explanation was acquiesced in by them ; at least they said naught against 
 it at the time.^ 
 
 5. But whatever protection was intended to be granted by the imperial 
 safe conduct, Huss forfeited all claims to it, by officiating openly at 
 Constance, though under papal excommunication,^ and especially by his 
 attempted flight from the city. Of this last fact, though it was the 
 immediate cause of the imprisonment of Huss,^ M. Bonnechose says not a 
 Word ! Yet it is attested by Ulricli Reichental, a citizen of Constance, 
 and an eye-witness !* Why omit so important a fact 
 
 Thus, then, it is manifest, from the clearest and most incontestable 
 evidence, that neither the council of Constance nor the emperor Sigismund 
 acted with bad faith towards either John Huss or Jerome of Praa^ue. All 
 these facts must be blotted from the pages of history, before any such 
 conclusion can be reached. 
 
 Much is said about the patience and heroism with which Huss and 
 Jerome met death. But even were we to admit all that their partisans 
 have written on the subject, it would not prove them to have been either 
 saints or martyrs. Sincere enthusiasts they might have been, martyrs 
 they certainly were not. The ancient martyrs were patient, humble, 
 obedient to the Church, and they died to seal with their blood the religion 
 of Jesus Christ. Huss and Jerome died, as the founders and partisans of 
 a truculent sect, the doctrines of which were subversive of all social order, 
 
 1 See the safe conduct as given entire from the original, documents, b^' Natalis Alexander—Hia- 
 tona Ecclesiastica, vol. ix, p. 407, edit. Venet. 1778, in 10 vols. folio. The mere reading of the 
 document proves it to have been nothing more nor less than a simple passport. 
 
 2 M. Bonnechose admits this, and gives the emperor’s address, pp. 92, 93. 
 
 3 See the acts of the council, sess. 10. 
 
 4 The letters of Huss to his friends, and M. Bonnechose's own admission, establish the fact that, 
 for more than twenty-six days, IIuss was entirely free and unrestrained at Constance fib. p 56.) 
 
 6 In his hiatory of the council,'written in German, and quoted by Cochloeus — Histor. Hussitarum, 
 lib. ii, pp. 73, 74, Reichental gives all the details of the attempted flight of IIuss, and of his arrest 
 by Latzembock, a Bohemian nobleman to whose charge he had been entrusted by the emperor. 
 
 6 In the text, M. Bonnechose says not a syllable about this attempted flight of Huss. But in note 
 II, at the end of the volume (p. 189), he admits that not only Reichental but another eye-witness, 
 Gebhard Ducher. certifies the fact. Nay, more, he funishes a leng'hy extract from the sixth book 
 of L’Knfant’s (Calvinist) history of the council of Constance, in which this unexceptionable historian 
 relates the whole occurrence in full. lie also admits that Naucler and the Abbe Tri'heme, who 
 wrote about a century after the council, relate the fact as certain; and that John Cochloeus, 
 Maimbourg, Varillas, and “ oil the modern authors” mention it. Yet he will not admit its 
 authenticity, because, forsooth, certain other authors, favorites of his, did not think proper to 
 relate it, and because no mention of it is made in the acts of the council! This preferring of 
 negative to positive evidence would, if carried out, sap the foundations ot all history. 
 
 W 2 17 
 
210 
 
 JOIINHUSS AND THE HUSSITES. 
 
 and the acts of which filled all Bohemia with sedition, riots, s.'icrilege, and 
 bloodshed; as we shall soon see more in detail. 
 
 The decree of the council, sanctioned in the nineteenth session, merely 
 explained the safe conduct given to John Huss by the emperor in the very 
 sense in which Sigismund had already explained it, viz : that it was not 
 intended to prevent the legal examination and conviction of Huss by the 
 council, but merely to insure him protection against illegal violence and 
 outrage on his journey. To put any other construction upon it is to offer 
 violence to the plainest language. It merely asserts, what every one 
 admits, that a traveling passport is not intended to stop the ordinary course 
 of law, nor to protect the guilty; and that he who has granted it is not 
 responsible for the action of the law against the individual in whose favor 
 it was given. The decree was probably made to quiet the clamors of some 
 Bohemian partisans of Huss, after his arrest and imprisonment by order 
 of the emperor.’ 
 
 So far, in fact, was the council from approving the abominable 
 maxim,—“Faith is not to be kept'with heretics,”—-or of sanctioning 
 perjury in any form or shape, that, among the questions which it drew up 
 after the election of Martin V., to be put to those suspected of heresy, 
 there was one in which the suspected person was to be asked whether he 
 , believed that, under any circumstances, or for any reason whatever, it was 
 allowable for him to falsify the truth, or to perjure himself. The motive 
 for adopting this form of interrogation, was the charge often made against 
 the Hussites, that they would not scruple to commit perjury, in order to 
 conceal or defend their doctrines. If this charge was true,— and there is 
 strong evidence to sustain it,— it appears that, as has often happened both 
 before and since, the Catholic church was accused of the very maxims and 
 crimes of which her adversaries were guilty! 
 
 We will conclude this paper by furnishing a very rapid sketch of what 
 took place in Bohemia, after the death of John Huss and Jerome of Prague. 
 The terrible events which ensued there, and filled all Bohemia with con¬ 
 fusion, sacrilege, and bloodshed, for nearly half a century, present the 
 best possible commentary on the life and doctrines of Huss. They were 
 but the bitter fruits of that tree of disobedience, which he had planted in 
 once peaceful and happy Bohemia ! “ By their fruits ye shall know 
 
 them,” said our blessed Lord; and we are going to apply this divine rule. 
 
 The mantle of Huss fell on the shoulders of Ziska, his friend, his 
 fdisciple, his avenger, near whose tomb was engraved this inscription : “ 0 
 
 1 The decree is as follows in the original:—“ Prsesens Sancta Synodus ex quovis salvo conductu 
 per iinperatorem, reges et alios soeculi principes, haereticis vel de haeresi diffainatis, putarites eosdem 
 Bic a suis erroribus revocare, quocumque vinculo se adstrinxerint, concesso. nullum fidei Catholicje 
 vel jurisdictioni ecclesiasticse praejudicum generari vel inipediuientum praestari posse seu debere 
 declarat, quoininus dicto salvo conductu non obstante, liceat judici competenti et ecclesiastico de 
 hujusmodi persoiiaruni erroribus inquirere, et alias contra eos debite procedere. eosdeinquo punire 
 in quantum justitia suadebit, si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint, etamsi de salvo 
 conductu confisi ad locum venerint judicii. alias non venturi; nec sic promittentem, cum fecerit 
 quod in ipso est, ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum.” Sessio xix. Labbei Concilia, vol. xil 
 col. 169 
 
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 
 
 211 
 
 Huss! here reposes John Ziska, thy avenger, and the emperor himself has 
 quailed before him!”' Perhaps of all the dark deeds recorded in the 
 annals of mankind, those done in Bohemia, at this period, were the darkest; 
 and of all the dark names which are found on the pages of history, that 
 of Ziska is the darkest I 
 
 During his lifetime, and for half a century after his death, his very name 
 made all Europe shudder with horror. Whithersoever he bent his course, 
 he rioted amidst Carnage and ruins. He combined the cruelty of Attila 
 with the fanaticism of Cromwell; and his fanatical followers had the tierce 
 ruthlessness of the Huns, blended with, but not softened by, the stern 
 religious enthusiasm of the Roundheads. During the few years that this 
 truculent monster headed the armies of the Hussites,— from the death of 
 Huss in 1415 to his own death on the 11th of October, 1424,— Bohemia 
 was changed from a blooming garden into a frightful and frowning wilder¬ 
 ness. Let us hear even our very partial historian, M. Bonnechose, on 
 this subject;— 
 
 “ Bohemia, from one extremity to the other, soon became one vast field 
 of carnage ; everywhere conflagrations displayed to view dreadful massa¬ 
 cres ; woe to the towns, castles, and, above all, the monasteries that closed 
 their gates,— all passed by the edge of the sword. The sight of a monk 
 
 or a priest filled Ziska with a gloomy rage.He smote, burned, and 
 
 exterminated, coldly glutting his vengeance in the shock of combatants, 
 the gleam of flames, the shrieks of victims, ‘punishing,’ as Balbiaus 
 expresses it, ‘ one sacrilege by a thousand ! ’ Bohemia, Germany, and 
 Europe, were soon filled with the name of this terrible man. Wenceslaus 
 awoke from his shameful slumber at the noise of his falling palaces, of his 
 churches in ashes, of his senate massacred ; he started up in a frightful fit 
 of passion, which was injurious to himself alone, for his fury suffocated 
 him.”^ 
 
 The followers of “this terrible man” were called Taborites ; “their 
 enemies were the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites: Sigisipund 
 was the red horse of the Apocalypse : Bohemia was the land of promise. 
 The mountains adjoining Prague received the biblical name of Horeb; 
 
 ‘ their fierce inhabitants descended from them at the call of Ziska, and 
 hurried to his standard,”^ and their leader called himself “Ziska of 
 the cup.” 
 
 Already blind of one eye, he was deprived of the other by the wound 
 of an arrow at the siege of Raby : 
 
 “Butin becoming blind, he became still more terrible,— his wound 
 was a fresh stimulus to his rage as to his genius, and revealed in him 
 faculties really almost inciedible. His memory of locafities was pro¬ 
 digious : it was quite sufficient for him to have once passed through a 
 country, to remain forever perfect master of all its slightest incidents. 
 Bohemia, with her waters, woods, valleys, and plains, was now as present 
 to his thoughts as the reality had ever been to his sight. A spirit of fire 
 in a body of iron, his activity knew no fatigue, and became exasperated at 
 rest. ‘ All seasons and weather are alike to this blind man,’ his soldiers 
 
 * 
 
 1 Bonnechose, p. 165. 
 
 2 Ib. p. 158. 
 
 S lb. p. 160. 
 
212 
 
 JOHN HUSS AND THE HISSITES. 
 
 used to mutter; ‘ he goes by night as by day/ Wherever there was n 
 monastery to burn, or a town to take, or an army to combat, he hurried to 
 the spot, and was soon accomplishing the deed of blood, with a superhu¬ 
 man force, as if urged to the work bv an exterminating God/'* 
 
 Such was Ziska “of the cup," the successor of John Huss, and the 
 very impersonation of Hussism. He never knew defeat; he conquered in 
 eleven pitched battles. He often raged against his own followers, with as 
 much cruelty as against his enemies. He bequeathed his fiendish spirit to 
 the two Procopiuses, who succeeded him as leaders of the Hussites ; and 
 to animate their courage, and to keep up the fierce and sanguinary spirit 
 of his followers, he bequeathed to them a martial instrument of music, 
 such as never was heard of either before or since! 
 
 “ He eicpired (of the plague) on October 11, 1424, ordering his soldiers 
 to abandon his body to birds of prey, and to have his skin made into a 
 drum, the mere noise of which would cast terror into his enemies. 
 
 Such, then, were the fruits of the doctrines and of the obstinacy of John 
 Huss ! For it was certainly more owing to the truculent character and 
 tendency of those doctrines^ than to any mere revenge for his death, that 
 Bohemia was filled with all those atrocities. Such was the dark and 
 bloody monument which Bohemia erected to his memory! So much 
 mischief can one bad man do in the world! 
 
 1 Bonnechose, p. 161. 2 lb. p. IM. 
 
XL THE SPANISH INQUISITION. — PRESCOTT’S 
 
 VIEW.* 
 
 Interest of Spanish history—Evils arising from the French revolutiou—Can Spain become Protestanf] 
 —Prescott's Ferdinnnd and I.<abella—His character as an historian—His prejudices—His authorities 
 on the Spanish Inquisition—Who was Limborcb? — His reliability—Character of Llorente-Writer* 
 on the other side—Prescott’s view—His statements examined—Three propositions established-Wa* 
 
 the Spani.sh Inquisition a religious or a political institution?—Us origin traced —A parallel case_ 
 
 Remarkable testimony of llanke —The alleged cruelties of the inquisition—Are they exaggerated? 
 
 —Authority of Voltaire—Of Bourgoing—And of Limborch—The civil and ecclesiastical court*_ 
 
 “Justice and Mercy”—Mode of procedure —Motive for secresy—Torture—.lurisprudence of the 
 time—In what court was the final decision given?—Count I’olnitz—English and Genevan Inquisition 
 —Was counsel allowed the accused ?—Is the Catholic Church responsible for the Spanish InquisS* 
 tion ?—Agency of the Roman Pontiffs—Their efforts to restrain cruelty—The Portuguese Inquisition. 
 
 The history of few countries is invested with greater interest than that 
 of Spain. Her annals are varied in incident, rich in moral, and full of 
 instruction for the philosopher and Christian. No country of Europe has 
 preserved the spirit of mediaeval chivalry so pure, or for so long a time. 
 This spirit is impressed on all her institutions, and is yet visible in the 
 high character and lofty bearing of her people. The type of her national 
 character is still, to a great extent, that of the ancient knights of St.Iago, 
 of Calatrava,and of Alcantara; the only difference is, that it has been 
 softened down to suit the more pacific tendencies of the present age. Her 
 whole history is replete with strange vicissitudes and startling occurrences. 
 
 No country, perhaps, has exercised a more powerful infiuence on civili¬ 
 zation in Europe, or done more to extend its boundaries into regions remote 
 and before unknown. But for tlie liberal enterprise and enliglitened policy 
 of her sovereigns, the ardor of Columbus might have cooled, and America 
 remained undiscovered for centuries. With the names of Alfonso the Wise, 
 of Sancho the Great, and of Ferdinand and Isabella, among her princes and 
 legislators; with those of Don Rodrigo Diaz del Bivar, the renowned Cam~ 
 pion or Cid, and of Gonsalvo de Cordova, the “great captain,” among her 
 generals; and with those of Calderon, Lope de Vega, Cervantes, Herrera, 
 and Garcilaso de la Vega among her literati, not to mention many others, 
 she has little to fear from comparison with any othei* nation. The calendar 
 is crowded with the names of her saints ; St. Dominic, St. Vincent Ferrer, 
 St. Teiesa, St. Peter of Alcantara, St. Ignatius, St. Francis Xavier, and 
 hosts of others are her patrons in heaven. 
 
 The interest in Spanish history and institutions is greatly increased by 
 the present critical condition of tliat country. The storm which lately 
 swept over Spain, threatened to destroy almost every monument of her 
 former greatness, and to carry away every vestige of tlie middle ages. It 
 was an evil day for Spain when, half a century ago, her soil be(;anie the 
 
 ^History of tiie reij^n of Ferdinand and Isatteila tlie Catholic. By William 11. 
 Prescort. 3 vols. 8 vo. up. 411, 5011, and 496. Boston. Fifth edition 1839. 
 
 213 
 
214 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 theatre of a sanguinary struggle between the hosts of France and England 
 All her present evils date back to that ill-fated period. The Peninsulai 
 war sowed upon her soil the seeds of French infidelity and of English 
 Protestantism, and these seeds are now producing their bitter fruits. And 
 it is remarkable that the startling proceedings which took place in Spain 
 about ten years ago were accordingly distinguished by the fierce fanaticism 
 of the French revolution, tempered with the cold, calculating policy of the 
 reformation in England under Henry VIII. We trace the policy of Eng¬ 
 land in the invasion of Church property, and in the destruction of tlie 
 monasteries ; and that of France in the massacre of the monks at Barcelona 
 and elsewhere. 
 
 Whatever may be the final results of the fierce revolutionary struggle 
 through which the peninsula has lately passed, one thing at least appears to be 
 certain. The climate of Spain is too warm for Protestantism; on her soil the 
 Protestant sects would be exotics which could have but a sickly growth at 
 best, and which would soon wither and die. The only climate at all con¬ 
 genial with Protestantism is the cold, calculating north ; it is too dreaiy, 
 too devoid of feeling and soul, to suit the ardent temperament of the south. 
 The Spaniards are too thoroughly Catholic, ever to be tainted, at least to 
 any great extent, by the errors of the last three centuries. The appeal of 
 the late sovereign Pontiff in behalf of suffering Spain, met with such a 
 response, in the bosoms of millions all over the world, as bespoke Catholic 
 unity, and told of the depths of that sympathy, which flows from Catholic 
 charity. Only the Catholic Church can present the spectacle of the whole 
 world thus forgetting every sectional and political difference, and, at the 
 voice of one old man, kneeling before one common altar, and in divine 
 unison of faith and feeling, praying for one common object. That prayer 
 was heard, and Spain has been preserved to the Church ! 
 
 Mr. Prescott has selected for the subject of his work the most interest¬ 
 ing and brilliant period of Spanish history. The age of Ferdinand and 
 Isabella is to Spain, what that of Louis XIV. was subsequently to France ; 
 and what, immediately after, the pontificate of Leo X. was to Italy and to 
 the world. It was the era in which she laid broad and deep the founda 
 tions of that solid glory, which made her for more than two centuries the 
 first country in Europe. It was the age which witnessed the glories of 
 Ponce De Leon, and of Gonsalvo de Cordova, in the field; of Cardinals 
 Mendoza and Ximenes, in the cabinet; and of Christopher Columbus on 
 the broader field of the world, discovering a new continent. Mr. Prescott 
 could scarcely have chosen a loftier theme. And he has brought to the 
 execution of his task a great amount of learning, as well as much industry 
 and care in the arrangement of his copious materials. His work manifests 
 a degree of research into Spanish history highly creditable to the author; 
 the more so, as in its preparation he had to encounter for a time the for¬ 
 midable obstacle of almost tohil blindness.* Such works may be often met 
 with ill Italy or Germany, and occasionally in France or England, but they 
 
 1 See his Preface. 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 215 
 
 are extremely rare in our light and frivolous age, and yet more so in our' 
 republic, where the utilitarian system of estimating every thing in dollars 
 and cents, has perhaps taken deeper root than anywhere else in the world,- 
 The United States may well be proud of two such historians as Prescott 
 and Bancroft. 
 
 It is not our purpose to furnish a lengthy review of Mr. Prescott’s 
 history. It is before the American community and may speak for itself. 
 In our opinion the style is more natural, and better adapted to historical 
 narrative than the more florid manner of Bancroft, who seems to have 
 cauirbt no little of the transcendental and Bulwerian infection of theVee. 
 Wliat is, however, most pleasing in the history of Ferdinand and Isabella, 
 is the array of learned references, by which each statement is sustained. 
 Not only is every original document and work cited, but the very edition 
 and page are carefully marked, so as to facilitate, in a high degree, the 
 researclies of the scholar who might feel disposed to verify the quotations. 
 The statements of the author may be relied on, wherever he confines 
 himself to facts, unless when he views them through the improper medium 
 of undue prejudice, or is misled, as to the facts themselves, by prejudiced 
 ' authority. Then he either greatly miscolors, or wholly perverts the facts. 
 We will endeavor to show That he has committed both these faults in the 
 seventh Chapter of his first volume, pp. 230-269, whei-e he gives a detailed 
 history of the “ Modern Inquisition ” in Spain ; and our remarks on his 
 history will be confined to this Chapter. 
 
 That he was greatly under the influence of anticatholic prejudice, we 
 infer from the whole tenor of the Chapter, which is in fact as virulent a 
 libel upon Catholicity as we have ever chanced to read. To prove that 
 the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition were in accordance with the 
 piinciples of the Catholic Church, he repeats* the stale calumny that a 
 Catholic principle is embodied in the odious proposition, “the end justifies 
 the means.” He turns out of his way to attack the Catholic doctrine of 
 confession, which he designates** an “artful institution ” of the priests, to 
 gain influence with the people; and to show how Isabella’s repugnance 
 to the establishment of the Inquisition was overcome, he relates a very 
 simple, if not absurd anecdote of what passed between her and her 
 confessor, Talavera.^ In opposition to all history, he still asserts that St. 
 Dominic was the founder of the ancient Inquisition, or at least maintains 
 tliat if he was not, in point of fact, he ought to have been."* He tells, in 
 a satirical tone, of the divine eloquence and wonderful miracles by which 
 St. Vincent Ferrer, in the fourteenth century, converted to Christianity 
 thirty-live thousand Spanish Jews.^ The sufferings of this unfortunate 
 people enlist his deepest sympathy; the Moors of Grenada have also his 
 warmest feelings ; these two people seem to have exhausted his .stock of 
 
 1. Vol i. p. 245. 2 Ibid. p. 246. 3 Ibid. 
 
 4 Tlii^ is file purport of his rt-asoning (p. 232, note). See La Cordaire’s late work “.4pology foi 
 the order of St Doiiiinic," in wbith this charge is ably refuted by undeniable evidence. 
 
 5 Vol. i, p. 240. 
 
216 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. ' 
 
 humanity, and lie has no sympathy to throw away upon the Catholic 
 Christians of Spain ! Nor is he alone in this respect. It is the fault of 
 most Protestant historians. Their sympathies run strongly in favor of Jew, 
 Turk, or dissenter of every shade of opinion, while for the Catholic they 
 reserve the vials of their wrath ! Is it, that there is a kindred spirit 
 among errorists of every hue, a certain relationship which makes them 
 have a tender feeling for one another ? It would seem so. The chief 
 severity of this remark consists in its truth ; and we have only to open 
 Protestant historians passim, to become persuaded of it. Mr. Prescott 
 furnishes abundant evidence of this spirit throughout his work. 
 
 It was scarcely to be expected that, reared as he evidently has been in 
 all the prejudices of Protestantism, Mr. Prescott should have become 
 wholly divested of the early impressions of the nursery, so as to approach 
 the subject of the horrible Spanish Inquisition, with a calm mind and a 
 steady.nerve. It was difficult to dispel the bloody phantoms of slaugh¬ 
 tered victims, which had haunted his early days, and to get rid of the 
 opinions in regard to that tribunal which had been fastened on his mind 
 by the teachings of the press and of the pulpit. But at least, as a faithful 
 historian, he should have exhibited its redeeming as well as its odious 
 features ; and to have qualified himself for this.task, he should have read 
 both sides, and not have suffered himself to be misled by violently 
 prejudiced writers. That many of those whom he has followed are of 
 this character, we will endeavor to show; and then we will glance rapidly 
 at the principal works written in defense of the Inquisition, which Mr. 
 Prescott seems either not to have seen at all, or not to have read. 
 
 The historians of the Spanish Inquisition most in favor with Protestants, 
 are Limborch and Llorente. Mr. Prescott cites them both, and bases 
 most of his statements upon the authority of the latter, who is so great a 
 favorite with him as to merit a special biographical notice at the close of 
 his chapter on the Inquisition. To ascertain how far they are to be relied 
 on, as historians of the Inquisition, we must see who they were, under 
 what circumstances they wrote their respective histories, and what 
 motives prompted them to the task. 
 
 Philip Limborch was a native of Holland, and he belonged to tlie sect 
 of the Remonstrants or mitigated Calvinists. He was a disciple of the 
 famous scholar, Vossius, who with Grotius had suffered so much from the 
 intolerant svnod of Dort, which in 1619 had consummated the division 
 of the Dutch Calvinists. He attained to considerable eminence in his 
 sect, in which he became a minister, and subsequently a professor of 
 theology at Amsterdam. He was not, however, very rigid in adhering 
 even to the slight standard of orthodoxy required by his own party ; for 
 he became a Unitarian, and was a great friend of the noted Unitarian, 
 John Le Clerc. who 'auds his widtings to the skies. Had John Calvin 
 been able to arise from his tomb, his recreant disciple might have stood a 
 good chance to be bound to the stake with Servetus, whose tenets he advo¬ 
 cated ; and had the Gomarist, or rigid Calvinist party in Holland been 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 217 
 
 uncliecked in enforcing the exclusive and persecuting canons of Dort, 
 Limborch might liave suffered martyrdom, or at least have been a 
 confessor witli Grotius and Vossius.* However, he escaped unscathed, 
 but with a deep and abiding sense of the wrongs his party had endured 
 from the Gomarists. He determined to shoot an arrow at them through 
 the Spaniards, wliose very name had been execrated in Holland, since the 
 days of Philip II. of Spain, and of the duke of Alba. The memory of 
 the fierce and bloody struggle with the Spaniards, in which so many 
 harrowing scenes had occurred on both sides, was still fresh in the minds 
 of the Dutch. To be sure they had, to say the least, been guilty of as 
 much cruelty, as the duke of Alba and his soldiery; but this was 
 forgotten, and the cruelty of the Spaniard was alone remembered, and 
 that Inquisition which he had in vain endeavored to establish in the two 
 countries was viewed with inconceivable horror. The very name caused 
 a cold shudder to seize on every Hollander. Limborch shared deeply in 
 these feelings, and he knew how extensive and how all absorbing they 
 were among his countrymen. He knew that he could not better cater to 
 their taste than by writing a detailed history of this odious tribunal: and 
 he accordingly set about the work and published it in one volume folio, at 
 Amsterdam, in 1692. His anticipations were realized; the work was 
 received with acclamations. The minds of his countrymen were too much 
 excited to enable them to perceive the glaring inaccuracies and gross 
 misstatements of the book ; and had he painted the horrors of the Inqui¬ 
 sition with tenfold force, their deadly hatred of the tribunal would have 
 caused them to devour the work without one misgiving! 
 
 Such was Limborch. He evidently wrote his history under such 
 excitement as would naturally lead us to expect little of the impartiality , 
 of the historian, and much of the exao'jreration of a man writincr aoainst 
 a tribunal odious in a religious and political point of view, and pandering 
 also to a taste greatly vitiated and highly excited. Accordingly we find 
 in his work few of the intrinsic qualities of a veridical history. He 
 professes to derive his statements from the works of the Inquisitors them- 
 sehes; yet Fra Paolo, the Italian historian of the council of Trent, whose 
 hypocrisy made him conceal the mind and heart of a Protestant under 
 the cowl of a Catholic friar, and Dellon, the famous Protestant autlior of 
 the too famous “Relation of the Inquisition at Goa,” are among his 
 favorite authors for reference ! And when he does cite the works of the 
 inquisitors themselves, such as Eymerick, Pegna, <fec., he garbles the 
 extracts, quoting only what suits his purpose, very often extracting only 
 the concluding sentence from a lengthy passage, and thereby often making 
 the inquisitors say just the contrary of what the}^ had intended. This 
 wretched cutting up of quotations is unpardonable in a work so extensive; 
 it would have been bad enough in a duodecimo, but in a folio volume it 
 is utterly inexcusable, and is a strong evidence of bad faith in the writer, 
 
 1 See llrandt’H History, copious extracts from which are cited in the Oral Discussion of Hughes 
 and lireckeiiridge, on the second question 
 
 X 
 
'218 THE .SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 No wonder tlmt Voltaire and the infidels of France received the book 
 ;with enthusiasm. It was just the kind of work they wanted. Its whole 
 tendency was to throw odium on the Catliolic priesthood, whom it 
 represented as gloating over the blood of their victims. But we are a 
 little surprised that the Abbe Marsollier, a cotemporary French Catliolic 
 priest, should have presented it, in an abridged foi-m, to the French people 
 in their own language, and that many very estimable French writers 
 should have been misled by its statements. A morbid appetite seems to 
 have seized upon the French people about that time. Writers, male and 
 female, published works on Spain. Madame d’Aunoy wrote a book 
 remarkable for its gross inaccuracy, in regard to the Spanish Inquisition, 
 and for its caustic ridicule of everything Spanish. The Abb6 De Vayrac, 
 who had spent twenty years of his active life in Spain, answered these 
 misrepresentations in his famous work “ L’Etat present d’Espagne,” 
 published at Amsterdam, in 1719, 4 vols. 12mo. He proved that the 
 statements of Limborch and Madame d’Aunoy, in regard to the Spanish 
 Inquisition were greatly exaggerated, or positively false. No one was 
 better calculated to write on Spanish affairs, than the Abbe ; but so 
 vitiated was the taste of his day, even in France, that the work caused a 
 great outcry, and the author had to encounter a storm of opposition. In 
 the preface to a second edition of his work, he ably defends himself from 
 charires made ao-ainst his statements under five different heads: with what 
 effect on his cotemporaries, history does not tell. It is much to be 
 regretted that this work of De Vayrac is not more generally known. 
 
 But the most popular history of the Spanish Inquisition among the 
 enemies of this tribunal, is that by Don Juan Antonio Llorente, publisiied 
 at Paris, 1818, in four volumes, 8vo. A brief sketch of this remarkable 
 man’s life, will show us what motives prompted the publication of this 
 work. He was born at Calahorra in Spain, A. D. 1756. He studied for 
 the Church, took the degree of bachelor in theology, with considerable 
 credit, and was ordained priest at an early age. A singular incident 
 occurred at his ordination : after the consecration in which he had 
 recited the sacred words of Christ, together with the ordaining bisliop, he 
 was seized with a sudden illness, which prevented his receiving the holy 
 communion: some viewed the occurrence as ominous. His first work 
 after ordination was a comedy “on matrimony,” * which, however, at the 
 earnest solicitations of a friend, he consented to burn. When subsequently 
 vicar general of the diocese of Calahorra, he composed another comedy, 
 and had it acted on the stage, very little to the edification of the people and 
 of tiie clergy of that city. So great was his passion for this kind of 
 writing, that when afterwards wholly engaged in politics, he employed 
 his leisure hours in translating into Spanish many of the unchaste poems 
 of the lascivious Casti ! His was a troubled and restless spirit. Not 
 content with his retirement at Calahorra, he proceeded to Madrid, where 
 he spent his time intriguing for place. He succeeded, and rose step by 
 
 1 £1 Matrimonio a desgusto. 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 219 
 
 step, until he became secretary of the Inquisition at Madrid, an office 
 which he held from 1790 to 1792. Having been guilty of a grievous 
 betrayal of the confidence reposed in him by the Inquisitor General, and 
 of several other irregularities of conduct, he was ordered to leave Madrid, 
 and to repair to his native place. 
 
 Here he was equally restless and intriguing. Detected by the Spanish 
 government in a secret correspondence with the emissaries of the French 
 republic in 1793, and suspected of other misdemeanors, he was arrested, 
 and sent by the Inquisition, not into a dungeon, but merely into a retired 
 convent of the Recollects at some distance from Calahorra, to compose in 
 solitude his restless spirit and to do penance for his sins. Among his 
 writings which were seized, several were found against the Spanish 
 government, against the Holy See, and against the Inquisition. And yet, 
 strange cruelty of the bloody Inquisition! upon his writing letters full 
 of repentance and abject submission, he was released from his place of 
 retreat, and again received into favor. He now made his appearance at 
 court, and pushed his fortunes more rapidly than ever. By the aid of 
 powerful friends, he was soon created canon of Toledo, and received the 
 cross of the order of Charles III. At the court of Ferdinand VII., he was 
 loaded with honors; and yet, on the first invasion of the French, he 
 sought out Murat, their commander in chief, turned traitor to his country, 
 and ranged himself on the side of her enemies ! He repaired to Bayonne 
 to pay his court to the new king, Joseph Buonaparte, took the oath of 
 fidelity to him, and was appointed one of his secret counselors. He now 
 gave himself up entirely to politics; abandoning every ecclesiastical 
 function, some say, even doffing the ecclesiastical habit. 
 
 Charged by Joseph Buonaparte with a commission for the suppression of 
 the convents in Spain, he discharged his office with singular zeal and 
 efficiency. In 1809, he was ordered by Joseph to write a history of the 
 Spanish Inquisition, and he was no doubt well paid for his labor. He 
 knew well what kind of a work would suit the palate of his royal master, 
 and what kind of a work he was expected to write. He set about his task 
 with great ardor ; but owing to the expulsion of the French from Spain, 
 and to other causes, he was not able to complete it until nine years later. 
 He fled to Paris with his royal patron, and after having taken temporary 
 sheltor in England, he returned to Paris, after the treaty of Vienna, in 1815. 
 
 Nothing shows more fully his restless ambition and his total want of 
 principle, than the course which he now adopted. Finding that the sun 
 of the Buonaparte family had set forever, he determined again to pay his 
 court to that Ferdinand whom he had abandoned and betrayed! He 
 employed his usual weapon of low adulation, wrote a genealogi(;al table 
 of the royal family, and addressed letters full of flattery to the king and 
 to the chapter at Toledo. But all was unavailing : his letters remained 
 unnoticed. Then it was that he gave way to all the bitterness of his 
 spirit He wrote his portraits of the Popes, full of invective and misrep¬ 
 resentation. When accused of gallantry with a French countess, at tlie age 
 
220 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 of sixt 3 ^-six, his friends defended him on the ground that he had previously 
 married her, tliough he was a priest who had vowed celibacy ! He was 
 finally banished from France, by the French government, for improper 
 conduct,' and died shortly after at Madrid, February 25th, 1823, in the 
 sixty-seventh year of his age. Had the Spanish government and the 
 Inquisition been such as he had represented them, he would not perhaps 
 have been permitted to re-enter Spain, and to terminate his life peacefully 
 in his own country. 
 
 Such was Llorente, a traitor to his country, and probably to his religion; 
 who tried to play off, in Spanish affairs, the same part that Talleyrand did 
 in those of France, but failed for want of tlie genius of the latter. He was 
 in Spain the counterpart of Fra Paolo in Italy, and of Courayer and Du 
 Pin in France. Could we expect an impartial history of the Spanish 
 Inquisition from such a man ? He alters texts to suit his own purposes, 
 and gives us only his own word for most of his statements. To show how 
 little his assertions are to be relied on, in a pamphlet published at Paris in 
 1818, he boldly asserted that, between the years 1700 and 1808, the 
 Spanish Inquisition had immolated at the stake no less than fifteen hundred 
 and seventy-eight victims. This is not only a gross exaggeration, but a 
 manifest misstatement.^ Since the accession of the house of Bourbon to 
 the Spanish throne in 1709, it would be difficult to prove that one victim 
 was so immolated, or suffered capital punishment in any other way, 
 through the agency of the Inquisition ; and neither Llorente nor any other 
 man has furnished proofs to the contrary. During this period, and for a 
 long time previous, the chief inmates of the Inquisition were state 
 prisoners guilty of high political misdemeanors, who had either accused 
 themselves of imaginary crimes against religion, to avoid the greater rigors 
 of the civil courts, or had been sent there by the Spanish government in 
 order to prevent the eclat of a public trial. The terrible Inquisition thus 
 became little more, under the Bourbon dynasty in Spain, than a department 
 of the police. 
 
 Among the writers who have defended the Spanish Inquisition, besides 
 the Abbe De Vayrac, mentioned above. Count De Maistre,^ and La Cor- 
 daire,^ are the most distinguished. The works of both these conspicuous 
 men are already before the American public, and it is unnecessary to offer 
 much comment on them. La Cordaire devotes two chapters of his work 
 to the Inquisition, of which he treats only in its connection with his main 
 subiect — the defence of the ord^r of St. Dominic. He adduces few 
 facts or arguments, which had not been already ably handled by De 
 
 1 The writer of his life, prefixed to*his “ History of the Inquisition,” ascribes his banishment from 
 France to the persecution of the French clergy. Mr. Prescott hitjts at tlie same cause. But we 
 think that the true cause is to be found in his own restless ambition, and the jealousy of the 
 French government. 
 
 ‘2 Mr. I'rescott detects many gross historical inaccuracies in Llorente, unconnected with the 
 Inquisiiion, in painting which, according to him, he was never at fault! See Prescott, vol. i, 
 p. 250, note; vol. ii. p. 108, note. 
 
 3 In his ‘‘ l,cMeis on the Spanish Inqui.sition.” 
 
 4 ‘‘Apology for the order of St. Dominic,” 18mo, p. 143. 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 221 
 
 Maistre, whose work had been considered by many as the best which has 
 ever appeared on the subject. Its chief fault is its brevity. We rise from 
 its perusal with a desire to know more. Perhaps, too, the author has 
 indulged rather too much in philosophic speculation, and has advanced 
 some principles for the defence of the odious tribunal, which its enemies 
 would scarcely admit. Had he been less apparently solicitous to defend 
 everything connected with the Inquisition, and had he given up certain 
 things, which are wholly indefensible, his woik would have carried with 
 it a greater appearance of. candor and plausibility. Catholicity never can 
 be injured by the truth. There is also a certain vagueness, and some¬ 
 thing that savors of inconsistency. Thus, for example, in his last letter, 
 he says: “ The tribunal of the Inquisition is purely royal,” and yet a little 
 farther on, he remarks, quoting from the report of the Cortes: “ These tribu¬ 
 nals (the Inquisition) are thus at once ecclesiastical and royal,” &c. He 
 meant to say, wJiat the truth of history warrants, that of the two tribunals 
 of the Inquisition the royal is predominant, and generally paramount in 
 its authority; but it would have been better to have been more explicit. 
 Notwithstanding these defects, the work of De Maistre is still excellent, 
 and no one can peruse it without thinking better of the Inquisition. 
 
 The best compendious view of the subject which we have ever seen, is 
 an essay by John Murary, inserted in a late work published by him in 
 London.* But a full, fair, and extensive history of the Inquisition,— one 
 that might, by its learning, serve as an antidote to those of Limborch and 
 Llorente,— is still b, desideratura \n our Catholic literature. It requires 
 the extensive learning and patient research of a Dr. Lingard, or a Dr. 
 Wiseman, to dispel the clouds which have hung around the tribunal for 
 centuries, and to present to the world, in the terse and condensed style of 
 the one, or the copious and luminous details of the other, such a history 
 as the importance of the subject demands. 
 
 Yet enough has been already published to enable us to detect many of 
 the ina(;curacies of Mr. Prescott, in his history of the “ Modern Inquisi¬ 
 tion ” in Spain. To attempt to review all of his statements in detail, would 
 swell this essay to an unwarrantable length : we will confine ourselves to 
 certain general erroneous views, which pervade the entire history, cover 
 the whole ground of the controversy, and include the minor inaccuracies. 
 We have already endeavored to trace the sources of these errors in the 
 authors whom he has chiefly followed. 
 
 Mr. Prescott views the Inquisition as a religious, and not as a political 
 institution ascribes its establishment, notwithstanding the repugnance of 
 Isabella, to the importunities of the clergy,® and the fanaticism ofi the 
 people, demanding the sacrifice of the Jews, through selfish motives and 
 religious hatred of that race and he more than intimates that the tribunal, 
 with all its laws and proceedings, was but a carrying out of the principles 
 
 1 A compendium of modern geography. 1 Tol. 8vo, p. 393. 
 
 2 Voi. 1, p. 245, note. At leuBt he asserts this in regard to the Inquisition established in Castile. 
 
 8 Vol. 1, pp. 249, 260, et seq. 4 lb. pp. 243, 244, tt seq, 
 
 X2 
 
2z2 THp. SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 of the Catholic Church.* He presents’ a very daik picture of its forms 
 of trial, of tlie presumptive proofs of Judaism, of tlie vaiious forms of 
 torture, and of the awful autos da. giving only tliose details which 
 were calculated to make the institution appeal- odious, and mixing up with 
 his account of the original Inquisition, established by Ferdinand and 
 Isabella, many forms and abuses, which, if tl-.ey ever existed at all, 
 certainly belong to a much later period. To make the Catholic church 
 appear in a still more odious light in the whole matter,^ h.e says, that the 
 Roman Pontiff, Sixtus IV'., was moved to the publication of his first bull 
 regarding the Inquisition, in 1478, by “the sources of wealth and influ¬ 
 ence which this measure opened to the court of Rome.” 
 
 To these charges most of the others may be reduced. These are the 
 shades: we will endeavor to exhibit some of the lights of the picture. 
 We will accordingly now proceed to establish, by summary proofs, the 
 three following propositions, which, it will be seen, are diametrically 
 opposed to the assertions of Mr. Prescott. Audi alteram 'partem ,— hear 
 the other side :— 
 
 I. The Spanish Inquisition was mainly a political institution, 
 and the result of extraordinary political circumstances. 
 
 II. Its cruelties have been greatly exaggerdted. 
 
 III. The Catholic Church is not responsible for the institution 
 itself, much less for its abuses, real or alleged. 
 
 I. It requires but a slight acquaintance with Spanish history to be con¬ 
 vinced of the fact, that the Inquisition in that country was an instrument 
 of state policy, employed under circumstances of high political excitement. 
 The causes which led to its establishment had been steadily operating for 
 nearly eight hundred years. In 711, the Moors had invaded Spain, 
 seized upon its finest provinces, driven the original inhabitants into the 
 mountains of the Asturias, and fastened a galling foreign yoke upon the neck 
 of a hitherto free people. But the Spaniards did not tamely submit to foreign 
 oppression: with the stern, unyielding perseverance which belongs to 
 their national character, they maintained the unequal contest with the 
 enemy which had overpowered them and crushed their liberties. From 
 the council held by the fugitive Spanish chiefs in the cave of Cavadonga, 
 in 711, to the conquest of Grenada, in 1492, the great struggle for the 
 mastery continued between the two races with but little intermission. 
 Kever was there a contest of so long a continuance, or which resulted in 
 a political hatred so deep and abiding. It was a civil and a border war, 
 between two races which could never amalgamate, because kept asunder 
 by different religions, different temperaments, and difterent interests. The 
 Spaniards were fighting for their liberties, for their fii-esides, and their 
 altars: the Moors sought to annihilate the one, and to pollute and desecrate 
 the other. All prisoners taken in war by the latter were sold into bondage 
 
 1 Ibid. vol. i, pp. 245,246, 248, and throughout the chapter. 
 
 2 lb. p. 255, et seq. 
 
 3 lb. p. 248 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 223 
 
 in Morocco, and religious orders were established by the Christians for the 
 redemption of these forlorn captives. The war thus assumed a religious 
 cast, and the military orders of St. lago, of Calatrava, and of Alcantara, 
 were established among the Spaniards to keep up the crusade against the 
 enemies of their country and of their religion. 
 
 Can we wonder that, under all these circumstances, the Spaniards 
 should have had a deadly political hatred of the Moors ? Can we be 
 surprised that, when this great struggle was approaching its crisis in the 
 brilliant reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, and when, for the first time for 
 seven hundred and eighty-one years, the Spanish nation had a fair oppor¬ 
 tunity to shake off the yoke, this political feeling should have increased 
 to a fearful excitement? And that this excitement should have manifested 
 itself in the establishment of a tribunal of great severity, to assist the 
 government in ferreting out the Moors, and in expelling them from the 
 country? We are rather surprised, that so much moderation was 
 evinced under circumstances so exciting. After the conquest of Grenada, 
 in 1492, the Moors were allowed the free exercise of their religion, and it 
 was only after repeated rebellions, both in Grenada, and in different parts 
 of the ancient Moorish kingdom of that name, that the Spanish government 
 resorted to the extreme measure of leaving the Moors no alternative but 
 to embrace Christianity or leave the country.* The bitter experience of 
 nearly eight centuries had convinced the Spaniards that the name of a 
 Moor was identified with that of a traitor and enemy of his country and 
 of religion. 
 
 Intercepted letters in cipher proved that, after the conquest of Grenada, 
 the Moors were concertincr with their brethren in Africa measures for 
 regaining their lost power in Spain. The Jews, who were very rich, who 
 were scattered all over Spain, and were intermarried with the most 
 opulent Spanish families,** were also deeply engaged in these plots.^ They 
 were, if possible, more odious in Spain than the Moors themselves. 
 They were, likewise, accused of other crimes of dreadful atrocity : of 
 kidnapping Christian children,'* and of selling them into bondage into 
 Africa, and even of feasting on the flesh of infant Christian babes, at the 
 celebration of their passover They had monopolized the trade of the 
 country, and, by usury and extortion, had fattened on “ the spoils of the 
 Egyptians” (Christians), in Spain. As early as the year 1391, popular 
 indignation against this unhappy people had burst forth into an insurrec¬ 
 tion, in which many of them were massacred. Other countries witnessed 
 similar scenes about the same time.® The expulsion of the Jews from 
 
 1 Mr. Prescott admits this, but still labors to prove that the indiscreet zeal of Cardinal Ximenei 
 led him to adopt such measures for proselytizing the Moors of Grenada, as infringed the treaty made 
 with them, and stimulated them to rebellion. Yet the facts he alleges scarcely prove this. Prescott, 
 Tol. ii, ch. 6. report of Cortes. 
 
 3 .Mr. Prescott says. vol. i, p. 136, that they were accused “ perhaps with reason,” with having 
 facilitated the first Saracenic inva.sion. 
 
 4 Similar charges were made against the Moors after theconquest of Grenada. See an interesting 
 
 paragraph in Prescott, vol. i, p. 253. 5 See Prescott, vol. ii, p. 136. 
 
 6 >ee I'rescott, vol. ii, p 152; note. Was Frederic the Great,-of Prussia, actuated by religious 
 bigotry, in expelling the Jews, in the last century ’ 
 
224 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 Spain, was demanded by the popular voice ; but the government, content 
 with some seve -e measures of precaution against them, resisted this 
 appeal for nearly a hundred years, and it was only after the Jews were 
 known to be leagued with the Moors for the subversion of Spanish liberty, 
 and after they had been detected in writing a libel' on the Spanish 
 government, that the edict for their banishment was published, and the 
 tribunal of the Inquisition established to carry it into execution. 
 
 In order the better to understand this whole history, let us put a parallel 
 case. Suppose the Indian tribes on our western frontier should invade 
 one of our western states, should subdue the finest portion of it, and 
 drive such of the original inhabitants, as had not fallen under the 
 tomahawk and scalping knife, into remote and unproductive portions of 
 the state. Suppose that they should establish a new government on the 
 ruins of the old, and that a bloody border war should be carried on for 
 centuries between them and the original inhabitants, and that these should 
 at length succeed in regaining their lost territory. But to make the 
 parallel complete, suppose that among the whites, a large and opulent 
 party should be found leagued with the Indians, and employing every 
 intrigue to maintain their usurpation, would any one be surprised if this 
 party should become more odious than the Indians themselves ? And if 
 popular indignation should be enkindled against them, even before the 
 expulsion of the Indians, would it not be perfectly natural ? But if the 
 Indians, after having been subdued, should be suffered to remain in the 
 country with all their national usages untouched, and should be expelled, 
 only after repeated attempts on their part, to regain their lost dominion; 
 would not this be viewed as an evidence of unwonted lenity ? And, if 
 even after this continued treachery, they should be still suffered to remain 
 in the country, provided they would conform to the religion and usages 
 of the whites, would we not consider it a clemency, astonishing even in 
 this age of boasted refinement ? For the whites expelled from their 
 homes, substitute the Spaniards ; for the Indians, substitute the Moors, 
 and for the treacherous party among the whites, the Jews; and the case 
 will apply to the condition of Spain, on the establishment of the Inquisition. 
 
 Leopold Rank6, an unexceptionable Protestant witness, gives the 
 following opinion concerning Llorente and the Spanish Inquisition : — 
 
 “ Llorente has given us a famous book on this subject, and if I may 
 presume to say anything that contravenes the opinion of such a prede¬ 
 cessor, let my excuse be that this well-informed author wrote in the 
 interest of the Afrancesados of the Josephine administi-ation. In that 
 interest, he disputes the immunities of the Basque provinces, though these 
 were liardly to be denied. In that interest too, he looks on the Inquisition 
 as an usurpation of the spiritual over the secular authority. Nevertheless, 
 if I am not altogether in error, it appears, even from his own facts, that 
 the Inquisitiod' was a royal court of judicature, only armed with ecclesias¬ 
 tical weapons. 
 
 1 Mr. Prescott mentions this fact, vol. i, p 249. But why hide away ia a note a fact, which had 
 60 great an influence on the destiny of this miserable people? 
 
 2 The Spanish party devoted to French interests. 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 225 
 
 “In the first place, the inquisitors were royal officers. The kings had 
 the right of appointing and dismissing them ; the kings had, among the 
 various councils at their court, a council likewise of the Inquisition : the 
 coui ts of the Inquisition were subject, like other magistracies, to royal 
 visiters; tlie same men were often assessors therein, who sat in the 
 supreme court of Castile. It was to no purpose Ximenes scmpled to 
 admit into the council of the Inquisition a layman nominated by Ferdinand 
 the Catholic. ‘ Do you not know,’ said the king, ‘ that if this tribunal 
 possesses jurisdiction, it is from the king it derives it ? ’ * * 
 
 “ In the second place, all the pi-ofit of the confiscations by this court 
 accrued to the king. These were carried out in a very unsparing manner. 
 Claims were laid even to the presents which had been made by the 
 , condemned long before their trials, and to the portions they had bestowed 
 on their daughters. Though the fueros (privileges) of Aragon forbade 
 the king to confiscate the property of his convicted subjects, he deemed 
 himself exalted above the law in matters pertaining to this court. It was 
 calculated in the year 1522, that the property of those alone who had 
 voluntarily pleaded guilty of heres}^ had, even in the short period since 
 the accession of Charles, brought him in upwards of a million of ducats. 
 The proceeds of these confiscations formed a sort of regular income for 
 the royal exchequer. It was even believed and asserted from the 
 beginning, that the kings had been moved to establish and countenance 
 this tribunal, more by their hankering after the wealth it confiscated, than 
 by motives of piety. 
 
 “ In the third place, it was the Inquisition, and the Inquisition alone, 
 that completely shut out all extraneous interference with the state ; the 
 sovereign had now at his disposal a tribunal, from which no grandee, no 
 archbishop, could withdraw himself. Foreigners were particularly struck 
 with this fact. ‘The Inquisition,’ says Segni, ‘was invented to rob tho 
 wealthy of their property, and the powerful of their consequence.’ As 
 Charles knew no other means of bringing certain punishment upon the 
 bishops who had taken part in the insurrection of the Gommunidades, ‘ he 
 chose to have them judged by the Inquisition. Philip II., despairing of 
 being able to punish Antonio Perez, called in the aid of tlie Inquisition. 
 For open heresy was not the only question it had to try. Already 
 Ferdinand had felt the advantages it afforded, and had enlarged the sphere 
 of its activity. Under Philip it interfered in matters of trade and of the 
 arts, of customs and marine. How much further could it go, when it 
 pronounced it heresy to dispose of horses or munition to France ? 
 
 “ Accordingly, as this court derived its autliority from the king, it 
 directed it to the advantage of the royaPpower. It was a portion of those 
 spolia of the ecclesiastical power, by which the government was made 
 mighty ; such as the administration of tlie grand masterships,^ and tlie 
 appointment of the bishops. It Avas in spirit, and tendency above all, a. 
 political institution. The Pope had an interest in thwarting it ; and 
 HE DID so, and as OFTEN AS HE COULD. But the king had an interest in 
 constantly upholding it.” ^ 
 
 This Avas a merely religious tribunal, forsooth ! The Avhole texture of 
 its constitution was as political as was its origin. The king named the 
 
 1 The Communes, who were struggling for their rights and liberties, (fueros) against tlie- 
 encroachments of royal prerogative. The bishops took the side of the people in the contest;—a 
 fact as striking as it is honorable. 
 
 2 Of the military orders, which were very rich and influential. 
 
 8 “The Ottoman and Spanish Empires in the sixteenth and seventeenth ceiiturie.s; by Leopold 
 Ranke, etc.” Philadelphia Lea and Blanchard; 1845, p. 78-9. 
 
 18 
 
226 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 Inquisitor General, who, with the approval of the king, named the 
 subordinate officers of the tribunal. The whole institution was under the 
 control of the royal council, without the sanction of which it was 
 powerless: while the king with his council could stay any prosecution, or 
 crush any process at will. ^ So manifest was it to the whole world, that 
 this tribunal was a local political institution, growing out of circumstances 
 peculiar to Spain, and designed only for the Jews and Moors, that when 
 subsequently the Spanish government, under Philip II., sought to establish 
 it in Milan, the people revolted, exclaiming “ that it was tyranny to impose 
 on a Christian city, a form of Inquisition designed for Moors and Jews.” ’ 
 And so intimately was it connected with Spanish politics, that the great 
 Charles V., in a codicil to his will, recommended it specially to his son 
 Philip II., as an institution “ upon which the safety of Spain depended.” ^ 
 In 1812 , the famous convention of the Spanish Cortes, assembled for 
 drafting a new constitution, appointed a special committee to draw up a 
 report on the Spanish Inquisition. The learned men who drew up this 
 able document, were no doubt well acquainted with Spanish history and 
 politics, and they are unexceptionable witnesses on another account,— 
 they were violently opposed to the Inquisition. Yet they assert, that “it 
 was an institution demanded and established by the monarchs of Spain in 
 difficult and extraordinary circumstances.” ® And M. Guizot, a famous 
 historian, and, though a Calvinist, the late prime minister of Catholic 
 France, says: “thatit was at first more political than religious, and 
 destined to maintain order, rather than to defend the faith.”'* 
 
 II. Much more might be said on this branch of the subject, but we must 
 hasten to the proofs of the second proposition, in which we will endeavor 
 to show that Mr. Prescott has drawn too dark a picture of the Inquisition,— 
 of its forms of procedure, and of its abuses and cruelties. Our limits will 
 allow only a bare statement of the facts : our readers will readily make the 
 eomments. Far be it from us to defend many abuses of this tribunal, 
 which, as we shall show, the Popes and the Church uniformly condemned. 
 Under the circumstances of extraordinary excitement which gave rise to 
 the Inquisition, it was natural to expect some unnecessary severity; and 
 the authority of the famous Spanish historian Mariana, who details tliose 
 acts of rigor, is thus easily explained. Again, when Philip II., about 
 sixty years later, re-established the tribunal with renewed severity, we 
 may look for many abuses. But these two periods of excitement were, 
 thank heaven, of very short duration, and the severities then resorted to 
 are not a fair criterion, whereby to judge of the general character of the 
 Inquisition. At other times, many of its rigorous laws were often, like 
 some of the grotesque forms of jurisprudence adopted by the Venitian 
 republic, a mere dead letter, retained on the statute book, in terrorem, 
 
 1 Liinborch, Uooki, ch. 27. 2 Ibid, B. i, ch. 30. 
 
 3 I'liey also declare that “ no decree (of the Inquisition) could be published without the conseat 
 of the king.” (Report Cortes in 1812). 
 
 4 ” Elle fat d’abord plu.s politique que religieuse. et destiuee a maiutcnir I’ordre plutot qu’ a 
 defendre lafoi.” Cours d’histoire moderue. I'aris. vol. 5, Lect. 11. 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 227 
 
 . 1 
 
 That the abuses of the Inquisition have been greatly exaggerated, we 
 prove by the express words of that arch-enemy of the tribunal, Voltaire,! 
 whose testimony Mr. Prescott cites with so much complacency, to prove 
 that the wicked measures of princes have generally originated in the evil 
 counsels of their confessors.^ We prove it by another unexceptionable 
 witness, Mons. Bourgoing, sent by the French republic in 1789, as 
 minister plenipotentiary to Spain. He was violently opposed to the Inquisi¬ 
 tion, and yet he says I will acknowledge, in order to give homage to 
 truth, that the Inquisition might be cited in our days, as a model of equity.” 
 This avowal, however unpalatable to himself, and to his employers, was 
 wrung from him only by the stern evidence of truth. Our third witness 
 is Philip Limborch, whose character we have given above. Out of a very 
 long list of criminals condemned by the Spanish Inquisition, during a 
 very long period, he admits that only fifteen men and four women were 
 executed, and most of these for treason, witchcraft, sacrilege, or other 
 crimes than heresy.'* From this fact we draw two inferences : first, that 
 the rigid laws of the Inquisition were very feebly executed; and secondly, 
 that a very small proportion of the criminals were tried for heresy. The 
 Roman Pontiff, Clement X., in a bull published in 1672, enumerates the 
 offences for which persons might be proceeded against by the Inquisition, 
 and it is remarkable, that out of thirteen different classes of crimes only 
 one is heresy.® If our readers be inclined to smile at the prominent place 
 assigned to witchcraft, sorcery, &c,, by the Pontiff, we ask them only to 
 remember the history of the Salem witchcraft. 
 
 Of the two courts of the Inquisition, the civil and the ecclesiastical, the 
 latter was in fact strictly a court of equity. The motto on its banner, 
 “ Mercy and Justice,” was indicative of its character. Mercy” was first 
 offered to the culprit, and if he would not accept it, he was delivered over 
 to the ” Justice” of the civil court; but even then, with great reluctance, 
 and always with a recommendation to “ Mercy.”® Before the accused was 
 arrested at all by the Inquisition, it was necessary to have the sworn 
 evidence of three difierent witnesses, each of whom was required to swear 
 that he was actuated by no malice, and that he did notact in collusion with 
 any other person.^ And both the accusers, and the officers of the Inqui- 
 
 1 IliB words as given in the French “Diet, des Sciences,” are remarkable. “ Sans doute, qii’on a 
 imputb a un tribunal si justement deteste, des exces d’horreurs qu’il n a pas tonjours commis: mais 
 e’est etre mal adroit, que de s’elever centre I'luquisition par des faits douteux, et plus encore, de 
 chercher dansle mensonge de quoi la rendre odieuse.”—“ Without doubt writers have imputed to a 
 tribunal so justly detested horrible excesses which it has not alway;3 committed ; but it is very inju¬ 
 dicious to decry the Inquisition by doubtful facts; and still more so to seek to render it odious by 
 falsehood ” And yet this is precisely what all the enemies of the Inquisition have done, and none 
 more so than Voltaire! 
 
 2 Vol. i, ch. 6, p. 246. 
 
 3 “ Picture of Spain,” reviewed by the French “ Journal des Debats,” of September 17, 1805. See 
 La Cordaire's Apology, &c. p. 117. 
 
 4 See Fletcher’s notes to De Maistre’s first letter. 
 
 6 Bullarium Rom. T. vii, p. 185. 
 
 6 Some authors think, without any reason, that this was a mere form. Jurieu, the famous French 
 Calvinist, in his “ History of the Papacy,” Tom. ii, ch. 6, admits the fact. 
 
 7 Simancas, Institutiones Catholicee. Tit. xliv. p. £30, Edit, Romse, 1575, 4to. This work had great 
 
22S 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 * 
 
 sition were subject to excommunication, if tliey were guided by malice, or 
 any other unwortliy motive*. It was only after the deposition of tlie third 
 witness, that the accused was summoned, when if he disproved the charges, • 
 he was released. If he failed to do so, he was still released, if he declared 
 his repentance. If, after being released, he was again arraigned in the 
 same manner as at first, and was convicted a second time, he was again 
 pardoned on repentance.^ It was only on the third conviction, by three 
 different sets of witnesses, each consisting of tliree, that he was finally 
 delivered over to the civil court, to be judged for the offense.^ 
 
 The chief motive for secrecy in the proceedings of the tribunal, was a 
 wish that the civU^ court might gain no knowledge of the facts, until the 
 ecclesiastical court had exhausted every expedient for reclaiming the delin¬ 
 quent. And so far was this secrecy carried, that there is no evidence to 
 prove that, when the criminal was handed over to the secular court, the 
 evidence elicited before the ecclesiastical tribunal was even so much as 
 communicated, to his prejudice. A trial altogether new seems then to have 
 commenced before the civil court, and it was only at this stage of the 
 prosecution, that tlie cruel practice of torturing the accused was resorted 
 to. Ecclesiastics were not concerned in the infliction of punishment: it 
 was contrary to the spirit of their order, and to the express laws of the 
 Inquisition itself.'* So that Mr. Prescott’s frightful picture of the clergy 
 applying the torture to their victims is, at best, but a fancy sketch.® 
 
 The practice of torturing the accused, in certain cases, was then almost 
 universal in the jurisprudence of all nations. It was a part of the civil law, 
 was embodied in the Theodosian and Justinian codes, and had the sanction 
 of Ulpian, and other distinguished expounders of these codes. It had 
 been borrowed from the old Roman jurisprudence. The Church did much 
 
 authority amonj' the early Inquisitors. The testimony of the several witnesses was carefully noted 
 down, and diligently sifted, and if on being again called, as they often were in the progress of the 
 examination, they did not confirm the previous statement in every particular, their testimony was set 
 at naught. Nor was the previous record of their testimony again read to them, but they were left 
 entirely to their memory. If, under this rigid scrutiny, they were detected in equivocation, self 
 contradiction or perjury, they were liable to imprisonment, and to other severe penalties. See Siman- 
 cas, p. o33. 
 
 1 Uenedict X., in a special bull, renewed these censures, and reserved the absolution from them to 
 the Holy See. 
 
 2 Even P. Limborch, cited by Fleury, admits that the criminal was twice pardoned, by the ecclesi¬ 
 astical court, on his repentance. 
 
 3 Some of the courts required only two, but the more general practice demanded three unexception¬ 
 able witnesses, for each conviction. True, witnes.ses of suspicious character were sometimes allowed to 
 testify, but their testimony was received only for what it was worth;— ••qualem qualem probationem,'') 
 as Simancas says. It might afford conjectural evidence, and might aid iu eliciting something more 
 conclusive; but of itself, it never could cause the conviction of the accused. (Simancas, Tit. li,p. 419.) 
 
 In fact, to condemn the accused, the clearest evidence, and the mo.st unexceptionable testimony, were 
 always required; probationes luce clariores requiriintur (Simanca.s, Ibid p 418 ) 
 
 4 The maxim, Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine, The Church abhors bloodshed.—i.s a standing principle 
 of tlie canon law, by which the clergy were specially bound 8o far was this maxim carried that 
 clergymen were forbidden to practise surgery, or even to bleed a pa lent. And yet, in the fa«e of this 
 evidence, the Catholic clergy must still be represented as thirsting f r blood I 
 
 5 In fact, he confounds the proceedings of the two courts throughout, barely remarking in a note 
 on page 2115, that Ferdin.and had established a supreme council to supervise the proceedings of the 
 subordinate tribunals. Why this important omission^ 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 229 
 
 to mitigate this and many otlier odious features of the civil law, and many 
 distinguished men, such as Ludovicus Vives, condemned the whole practice 
 as cruel and unjust/ Tortures were employed by the civil courts of the 
 Inquisition, only in extreme cases, and then more to prompt the repentance, 
 than to bring about the condemnation of the accused.^ The confession 
 elicited under torture could not be used against the accused, unless he 
 voluntarily confirmed it three days afterwards, according to the usage of 
 the Spanish courts.’ If he would not confess, he was generally acquitted.'* 
 The application of the torture was restricted within very narrow limits, and 
 all abuses in inflicting it were severely condemned,® and they subjected the 
 officers,thus transcending their powers, to the obligaiion in the forum of 
 conscience, as well as in that of the public courts, of repairing all injury 
 done to those thus tortured.® 
 
 In one word, the ecclesiastical court of the Inquisition was but prepara¬ 
 tory. The final decision of the case always took place before the civil 
 court, which alone inflicted the punishments ordained by the Spanish laws. 
 The former court had only to decide, whether there was sufficient reason to 
 have the accused indicted before the latter. It performed very much the 
 same office as our modern grand juries, with these important diflferences, 
 that it took cognizance only of a certain class of offenses connected with 
 religion, pardoned twice whenever the criminal gave satisfactory signs of 
 repentance, and never -presented but when there was no hope, of reforming 
 the oflender. Where will you find any civil court thus lenient V It is a 
 thing unheard of in modern judicial proceedings ; and yet the Inquisition 
 is to be held up to scorn as the most cruel of all tribunals! Count Poll- 
 nitz, in his very interesting memoirs,® is astonished at the ideas Protestants 
 entertain on a subject about which they know so little. “For my part, I 
 own to you I cannot imagine in what the barbarity consists, which you 
 Protestants attribute to the Inquisition. On the contrary it is, in my 
 opinion, the mildest and most lenient tribunal that exists.” And he assigns 
 the same reason that we do above, appeals to his own observation in Catholic 
 countries, and hints at the opposite spirit of the Calvinistic consistory of 
 Geneva. This was in fact an Inquisition which never forgave; and the 
 English court of high commission prosecuted the inoft’ensiv^e Catholic with 
 a rigor that never relented, no matter how much the victim cried out for 
 mercy ! Even Mr. Prescott allows that Elizabeth’s Inquisition equalled in 
 severity that established by Ferdinand and Isabella®. That fact is, the 
 
 1 Simaiicas, Tit. Ixv. p. 495, et. seq 2 Ibid, Til. Ixv. p. 496. 3 Ibid, p. 509. 
 
 4 Ibid, p. 610. 5 Ibid, p. 497. 
 
 6 For an account of the instrunienfs of torture employed again.st the Catholics of England under 
 Elizabeth and her successors, for more than oue hundred \ears, see I.ingard's England—Elizabeth, 
 Butler's Book of the Catholic Church. Cobbett's Letters, &c. England was the last country in 
 Europe to abolish the barbarous custom of burning at the stake, an instance of which ©ccurred as 
 late as the ninth year of George II. And yet Englishmen dare talk of the cruelties of the Spanish 
 Inquisition I 
 
 7 So equitable was the ancient Inquisition, that the Order of the Templar.*, in the beginning of the 
 fourteenth century, sought to be judged by it in preference to any other court. 
 
 8 l olliiitz’s “ Memoirs,'’ volume iii, quoted iu Fletcher’s notes to De Maistre. 
 
 8 Prescott, vol. iii, p. 202. 
 
 y 
 
230 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 former far outstripped the latter in every respect; and the English are the 
 last people under the sun who should talk about the Spanish Inquisition.* 
 And yet they precisely have raised the greatest clamor on the subject. 
 
 It is not true that counsel was not allowed to the party accused ; ^ it is 
 not true that the articles of accusation were not shown to him it is not 
 true that he had not proper means of defence allowed him. Finally, 
 though the autos da fe were bad enough, yet the picture of them which 
 represents the clergy assisting in order to enjoy the agony of the victims, 
 is as unjust as it is fanciful. They attempted to soothe, not to aggravate 
 the sufferings of the condemned, as ministers of all denominations at the 
 present day accompany the culprit to the scaffold. These are the 
 principal erroneous charges against the Spanish Inquisition, many of which 
 Mr. Prescott has revived. When presenting a sketch of the form of trial 
 by the Inquisition, why did he make so many important omissions? 
 Why present even the few facts which he does give, with a coloring 
 which indicates a prejudice more worthy of the fierce religious acrimony 
 of the sixteenth century, than of the refinement and goodly feeling of 
 the present day ? 
 
 III. But the most mischievous part of Mr. PrescotPs account of the 
 Spanish Inquisition is that, in which he deliberately charges on the 
 Catholic Church, not only the institution itself, but even its cruelties and 
 abuses. Nothing could be more unjust. The Inquisition is connected 
 with no doctrine of the Catholic Church, nor is it even a part of her 
 discipline. It was never established in any country without the concur¬ 
 rence of its temporal rulers. In Spairt the people and the Cortes demanded 
 its establishment from the king, as the only remedy to the desperate 
 political evils of the country.'* Ferdinand and Isabella, according to 
 Limborch,* “earnestly solicited the Roman Pontiff,” to allow them to 
 name inquisitors for their dominions. It is doubtful whether the Pontiff, 
 Sixtus IV., could have effectually resisted an appeal made with so much 
 earnestness, and involving a matter so intimately interwoven with the 
 welfare of Spain. He heard the petition, and issued the bulls demanded, 
 in 1478 ; but, on the appeal of the Jews against the excessive severity of 
 the inquisitors, he issued another bull in 1481, in which “he rebuked 
 their intemperate zeal, and even threatened them with deprivation.”® A 
 little later. Pope Leo X. received the petition of the Arragonese, stating 
 their grievances under the operation of the Inquisition, and granted the 
 prayer thereof by a special bull, by wiiich he greatly modified the form 
 
 1 See Linj'iird’s England, Elizabeth ; Butler’s “ Book of the Catholic Church;” Cobbett’s Letters, 
 and De Maistre’s fifth end sixth Letters, for proofs on this subject. 
 
 2 Simancas, Tit. xliv. p. 832, from who.se testimony it appears that, in the Spani.sh courts, counsel 
 was not 0 ||ly allowed, but that he had unreserved conimunicatiou with the accused for thive day.s, 
 in order, with his aid. to prepare suittible un.swers to the different charges of the indictment. 
 
 S This is admitted by the writer of a most virulent article in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, 
 Articie, I nqui.'itiort. Mr. Prescott adiiiits it too, bur, with a qualification which de.stroys the force of 
 the admi.s.'ion ; vol, i, p. 257. See Simancas, Tit. xliv. p. 332, where this is asserted without any 
 qualification. 
 
 4 See Report of Cortes. 6 Limborch, b. i, ch. 24. 6 Prescott, vol. i, p. 254. 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 231 
 
 of the whole tribunal, and restrained the powers of the inquisitors ; but to 
 show how powerless the Pope was in this matter, the Emperor Charles V. 
 annulled the papal decree by his royal authority! * But the Popes 
 succeeded better in regard to Naples, over which they had more political 
 influence ; they steadily opposed the introduction of the Inquisition into 
 that kingdom, and after a long struggle with the Spanish monarclis* 
 they gained the victory.^ It was Charles V., and not the Pope, w'hq 
 established the Inquisition in Sicily.^ It was the Senate of Venice, and 
 not the Pope, that established the Inquisition in this republic/ ; 
 
 The general policy of the Popes deprecated severity towards sinners and 
 those who had wandered from the true faith. The Bullarium Romanum 
 is full of proofs of this assertion. Our limits will allow but a few of the 
 most prominent facts. As early as 1268, we find Pope Clement IV. 
 disapproving of the severe laws against blasphemy enacted by the sainted 
 French monarch, Louis IX. Various Popes sought to protect the Jews 
 from the insults and injuries to which they were liable from the populace, 
 in various countries in Europe. Thus Honorius III., in 1217,*published 
 a bull in which he forbade, under the severest ecclesiastical penalties, any 
 one to force them to be baptized against their will, or to oiler any other 
 indignity to their persons, or injury to their property.® The Bull of 
 'Martin V., published in 1425,^ in which they were declared liable to 
 various penalties, if they persevered in buying and selling Christians, as 
 they were accused of having done, did not, however, revoke the acts of 
 his predecessors in favor of that obdurate race. As a proof of the 
 elemency of the Roman Pontiffs towards the Jewish people, there is a 
 proverb current among the latter to this day, that “ Rome is the paradise 
 of the Jews.” 
 
 In regard to the Inquisition in Portugal, the Popes maintained a long- 
 struggle with the Portuguese monarchs before they would at all consent 
 to its establishment, and then they did so with regret, according to the 
 testimony of Antonio Sousa, cited by Limborch.® And afier it had been 
 established, they did everything in their power to mitigate its severity. 
 Thus we find Clement X., in 1674-5, in separate bulls,® receiving*appeals 
 from the decisions of the Portuguese tribunals, and thieatening deprivation 
 and other penalties to the inquisitors, if they persisted. When the latter 
 proved disobedient to the papal mandate, we find Innocent XI., the 
 successor of Clement X., enforcing the decree of his predecessor against 
 them (A. D. 1679), and declaring their acts null and void.^° In another 
 bull published in 1681,“ the same Pontiff corrects many abuses which 
 had crept into the Inquisition of Portugal, and.^makes many salutai-y 
 
 1 Report of Cortes. * 2 Liuiborch, b. i, ch. 26 3 Ibid. b. i, cb. 27. , 
 
 4 See La(!ordaire, sup. cit. p. 125 5 Bulbirium Rom. tom iii, p. 191. 
 
 6 Those who wish ro see more on this interesting subject are referred to Guerra, Pouiilici.irum. 
 Constitutionum Epitome, toI. i. p. 191, et seq., Edit. Venitiis. 1772, 4 vols folio. 
 
 . 7 Rnllarium Rom. tom. iii, p 453. 8 B. i, ch. 25. 
 
 9 Bull. Rom. tom. vii, pp. 266, 271, and 312. 
 
 10 ibid. tom. riii, p. 96. 
 
 11 Ibid. p. 230i 
 
232 
 
 THE SPANISH INQUISITION. 
 
 enactments for the guidance of the inquisitors. Among these, one gives 
 to the accused the privilege of selecting other counsel, if that assigned by 
 the Inquisitorial court be not agreeable to him, and enjoins that the new 
 counsel have free access to his client; and another directs that the 
 prisoners be treated with greater mildness, that the prisons be less dark, 
 and the confinement less rigid. More evidence might be adduced to 
 prove what we have above asserted, but we must stop here.* 
 
 In the face of all these facts, is it not very unjust, to charge the Popes, 
 or the Catholic Church, with the abuses of the Inquisition ? It is certain 
 that they did everything in their power to restrain the excesses of that 
 tribunal; and if they frequently failed, it was the fault of temporal princes 
 and of the times, not of the Church. One fact in regard to the Spanish 
 Inquisition, would alone suffice to show how utterly unable the Pope, and 
 even a genei-al council of the Catholic Church was to reverse one of 
 its decisions. While the council of Trent was in session, Bartholomew 
 Caranza, archbishop of Toledo, was arrested by the Inquisition and 
 confined in prison on a charge of heresy. The interference of Pius IV„ 
 and the protest of the council of Trent, were unavailing; the Inquisition 
 was inflexible, and the archbishop was released only after eight years, by 
 order of Philip II.^ If this fact does not prove that the Church had no 
 control over the Spanish Inquisition, we are at a loss to know what could 
 prove this proposition. 
 
 Mr. Prescott^ attributes perfidy and interested motives to the Roman 
 Pontiff’s in their relations towai’ds the Spanish Inquisition. No assertion 
 could be more groundless. The Popes never derived any emolument from 
 the inquisitorial tribunals; it was one of the standing rules of the 
 “Supreme Roman Inquisition,” established by a bull of Paul III., in 
 1542,'* that its decisions should be given gratis in every case. In estab¬ 
 lishing this supreme court, the Pontiff revoked all inquisitorial powers, and 
 laid down such rules as were well calculated to prevent every abuse. 
 And though three hundred years have elapsed since the establishment of 
 this court, it would be difficult to point to an instance in which it ever 
 pronounced sentence of capital punishment.® The only thing for which it 
 has ever been blamed, is its very delicate tieatment of the great Galileo, 
 when a clamor was raised against him by jealous rivals whom he had 
 'eclipsed.® Such was the conduct of the Popes at home, where they had 
 ith ^ power to act according to their own judgment, untrammelled by the 
 ■p'' litical intrigues of princes. 
 
 The comparatively weak and imbecile condition of Spain for the last 
 century, has been ascribed to the Inquisition. If such be the case, how 
 
 I For more on this sul jict. see Guerra, p. 175, ft seq. This author has, however, omitted to notice 
 sav-’r.'il papal bulls re^ardiii): t lie Inqui.sition. 
 
 i See La Cordaire. .Xpolugy, etc. pp. 133-4. 
 
 Z Vol, i. pp ‘248 and ‘267 
 
 4 Bull Koin. tom iv. p. ‘211. 
 
 5 See IkTgier’s Diet de Theologie. Art Inquisition, where he nia'ice-s this same as.sertion even more 
 .ptroiigly, and challenges anv one to produce a proof to the contr.iry. 
 
 6 See La Cordaire. Apology, p 134, and Dublin Review for July, 1833 
 
Prescott’s view. 
 
 233 
 
 are we to explain the fact, that for two hundred years after its establish¬ 
 ment, Spain was the first country in Europe? The decline of Spain may 
 be traced, with greater probability, to other causes. The emigration of her 
 people to America, the influx of wealth from her colonies, and the conse¬ 
 quent decline of industry among her population, contributed, with various 
 other well known causes, to low^er her in the scale of European nations. 
 We often hear of the number of victims who were immolated by her 
 Inquisition, but we are not told of the far greater number who fell in the 
 various religious wars by which Germany, France, and England were 
 convulsed, while Spain was secured by tliis institution from the acrimo¬ 
 nious controversy in which those wars originated !’ Where the Spanish 
 Inquisition immolated one victim, the Moloch of religious dissension has 
 immolated whole hecatombs! 
 
 We cannot think that Mr. Prescott would have hazarded many of the 
 aspersions on the Catholic Church with which his book is filled, had he 
 been fully aware of the facts above stated. He might have learned a 
 lesson of moderation in this respect from his illustrious countrymen, 
 Bancroft and Irving, especially as the Inquisition, the cause of his 
 inclignation, no longer exists. We regret still more the faults of his book, 
 because it will descend to posterity as a standard work of American 
 literature* of which his country may justly be proud. It is time for.all 
 of us to learn the lesson of forbearance taught by the Gospel, and confirmed 
 by the bitter experience of the past. Have the Protestant sects been 
 immaculate on the score of religious persecution, in regard to the mother 
 Church, or even in regard to each other? If they have, then may they 
 rail at the Spanish Inquisition! But if they have some misgivings on the 
 subject, then would we say to them in the language of our blessed Lord 
 addressed to the Scribes and Pharisees, who sought the death of the 
 woman taken in adultery: “He that is without sin among you, let him 
 first cast a stone.’* 
 
 1 See Muzzarelli, *• II boon uso della loglca,” eta vol. t, p. 108, for a beautiful passage ou this 
 subject. 
 
 Y2 
 
XII. THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND.—BER. 
 
 NESE INTRIGUES.* 
 
 The late religious war in Switzerland — Policy of France and Austria — Intrigues of England — 
 Character of the War — Whence the liberties of Switzerland—Analogy between the late struggle, 
 and that preceding the Reformation — Berne the centre of operations — M. de Haller’s point of 
 view —His character as an historian — His authorities — Wavering of Berne — Tortuous policy — 
 How she embraced the Reform — The htar and the pears — Treacherous perjury of Bern^e — 
 Zuingliati Council — Its decrees — Religious liberty crushed — Riot and sacrilege—Proceedingi 
 of Bernese commissioners — Downright tyranny — The minister Farel — His Jiery zeal — An 
 appalling picture — A parallel — Priests hunted down — Character of the ministers — Avowal of 
 Capito — The glorious privilege of private judgment — How consistent! — Persecution of brother 
 Protestants — Drowning the Anabaptists — Reformation in Geneva — Rapid summary of horrors — 
 The Bernese army of invasion — The sword and the Bible — Forbearance of Catholics — Affecting 
 incident at Soleure — The war of Cappell — Points of resemblance — An armed apostle — A prophet 
 quailing before danger — Battle of Cappell — Death of Zuingle — Triumph of Catholic cantons — 
 Treaty of Peace. 
 
 % 
 
 The exciting occurrences which took place in Switzerland a few years 
 ago, caused the eyes of the whole civilized world to be directejl to that 
 most interesting country. All Europe stood looking on with the most 
 lively interest, while those scenes were enacting ; and France and Austria, 
 with their powerful armies, hovered over the Swiss frontiers, ready to 
 interpose in case of necessity ; — whether to stay the onward progress of 
 anarchy and civil war, or to turn the course which events might take to 
 their own advantage. 
 
 And these two great Catholic powers, after witnessing the noble heroism 
 with .which the Catholic Swiss at first successfully repelled the army of 
 invaders, which came to assail their dearest rights, and to pollute their 
 very firesides, could calmly look on and see those same noble heroes finally 
 succumb to overwhelming numbers ! Without striking a blow, or even 
 entering a serious protest, they could see the ancient liberties of Switzer¬ 
 land crushed in the dust, and its brave defenders bowed down under the 
 yoke of a most degrading slavery ! The vile intrigues of England gained 
 for her the diplomatic victory ; and the Catholic cabinets, at her bidding, 
 consented ignobly to sacrifice the cause of right and justice to that of mere 
 political expediency. The spirit of chivalry had fled, and the w^ak, nobly 
 struggling for their altars and their liberties, were permitted to be over¬ 
 whelmed by the strong; might thus gaining the day over right. 
 
 * Histoire de la revolution religieuse, ou de la reforme Protestante dans la Suisse Occi- 
 dentale. Pur Charles Louis de Haller, ancien membre du conseil souverain, et du 
 conseil secret de Berne, chevalier do I’ordre royal de la lejrion d’honneur, et de celui 
 de Charles III. d’Espagne, Ac. History of the religious revolution, or of the Protestant 
 Reformation, in Western Switzerland. By Charles Louis de Haller, former member of 
 the supreme and of the secret councils of Berne, Knight of the royal order of the 
 legion of honor, and of that of Charles III. of Spain, «5cc. 4th edition. Paris, 1839, 
 1 vol. 12mo, pp. 430. 
 
 I 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 235 
 
 It is admitted on all hands, that, in the disturbances to which we allude, 
 the Protestants were the aggressors, and that the Catholics acted only on 
 the defensive. Lucerne, the principal Catholic canton of the confederacy, 
 claimed the risfht of manafrins: her own educational concerns without the 
 interference of her neighbors ; this right was clearly guaranteed to her by 
 the fundamental articles of the Swiss confederation; and she resolved to 
 maintain it at all hazards. If the Catholic Lucerners thought proper to 
 entrust the education of their children to the Jesuits, what right had the 
 Protestants of Argovia, Berne, and Bale Campagne to object? What 
 right had the latter to say to the former, you shall not employ these 
 teachers, but you shall employ such as may be agreeable to our taste ? 
 Yet they did thus wantonly and rudely interfere with what was clearly 
 not their business; but they received a lesson which may serve as a 
 warning to all busy meddlers in future. 
 
 In the late desperate attempts to subvert the constitution, and to crush 
 the very independence of Lucerne by force, this brave old Catholic canton, 
 assisted by its faithful allies of Scliwytz, Uri, Zug, and Unterwald, proved 
 to all the world that it could fight as well as pray ; and that Ca^diolicity, 
 far from enervating, had strengthened its primitive vigor and courage. 
 The old Catholic cantons proved themselves worthy descendants of those 
 noble patriots who had fought at Morgarten, under the victorious banners 
 of Tell and Fiirst. These Catholic heroes had laid the foundations of 
 Swiss independence, in the beginning of the fourteenth century ; and with 
 their watch-word, liberty, they had ever proved terrible to their foes, and 
 unconquerable in battle. The fierce Gorgon of despotism had not dared, 
 for centuries, to desecrate, with his foul footsteps, the soil beneath which 
 rested the mortal remains of those soldiers of freedom ; nor to pollute, with 
 his pestilent breath, that pure and bracing air of the moiintains, which 
 was itself the rnost appropriate emblem of the pure, and lofty, and untram¬ 
 meled patriotism, cherished as their own heart’s blood by the brave, 
 sturdy, and enthusiastic Swiss mountaineers. 
 
 How could the Protestant reformation hope to pervert such men as 
 these ? It might easily gain over to its standard the comparatively eii’emi-' 
 nate, and the far more worldly-minded and corrupt inhabitants of the 
 plains; it could never proselytize the unsophisticated children of the 
 mountains. These prized their religion as dearly as they did their ancestral 
 gloiy; in fact, the two were intimately associated together in their minds, as 
 they had ever been in the heroic period of their history. It was the Catholic 
 religion which had inspired the ardent patriotism, stimulated the noble 
 courage, and nerved for battle the brawny arms of Tell and his associates ; 
 it was the Catholic religion which had crowned the victors with laurel, 
 had celebrated the triumphal disenthralment of the country by its splendid 
 services of thanksgiving, and had erected the public monuments which com- 
 memoiated the victory. Bending reverently before the altar of his God, 
 and falling prostrate before the Lamb oSered up thereon, the Swiss hero 
 had prayed with confidence for victory ; and he had there, too, returned 
 
236 THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. 
 
 liis fervid thanks to God, when victory had been finally won by his good 
 sword blessed by heaven. 
 
 No wonder, then, that Lucerne and the other Catholic cantons could not 
 brook to be dictated to by their neighbors, in matters involving the free 
 exercise of their religion. No wonder that they were willing to shed the 
 last drop of their blood, rather than have the bright jewel of faith torn from 
 their bosoms, or than wear, riveted upon their necks, the galling yoke of 
 a religious despotism. 
 
 The late war in Switzerland was a religious war, in which one party 
 was struggling for its religious independence, and the other, for the 
 establishment of a religious ascendency. That such a struggle should 
 have happened a hundred years back, would create little or no surprise ,* 
 but that it should have occurred in our own day ; in this enlightened and 
 tolerant nineteenth century ; in this enlightened age of dollars and cents, 
 in which almost every thing else is valued more highly than religion ; — 
 is indeed not a little astonishing. It might even seem that this age was 
 awaking from its lethargic stupor of inditfeience, and was putting on once 
 more somethinof of that religious zeal and enthusiasm which whilom 
 animated the crusaders. But such was really not the case. The awakening 
 was only local, partial, and fitful ; it was but a momentary outburst of a 
 religious bigotry as blind as it was hateful, on the one side ; and of a religious 
 enthusiasm for self-defense, both deep and determined, on the other. It 
 was a fitful war of two great conflicting elements in society — anarchy 
 and order. Order at first triumphed ; but anarchy finally gained the day ! 
 
 It would be but a very imperfect and short-sighted view of the subject, 
 to consider the late Swiss disturbances as merely isolated events, uncon¬ 
 nected with the past history of Switzerland. To understand them aright, 
 we must look back three hundred years, to the period when the great 
 religious revolution, called by courtesy the reformation, swept over that 
 country, scattering broadcast upon its once peaceful and happy soil the 
 prolific seeds of dissensions, and divisions, and civil wars. There is no 
 more doubt that all the evils, all the bitter feuds, all the rancorous civil 
 broils, and nearly all the bloodslied of Switzerland during the last three 
 centuries, have sprung from the reformation, than there is of this other 
 fact, that all the previous liberty, and peace, and glory of the country, 
 had sprung from the great political revolution effected by Catholics in the 
 beginning of the fourteenth century. These two great revolutions are the 
 starting points of Swiss glory and of Swiss disgrace. 
 
 It is with this view that we now proceed to present some of the leading 
 facts in the early history of the Swiss reformation; a revolution, as we 
 sincerely believe, pregnant with infinite mischief of every kind to the 
 Swiss confederation. 
 
 Zurich was the first city in Switzerland which embraced the reformation; 
 or, as M. de Haller expresses it, she was “the mother and the root of all 
 religious and political Protestantism in Switzerland.” ‘ She was nearly 
 
 1 Page 434. 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 237 
 
 eight years in advance of Berne in the race of reform; and it was through 
 her influence mainly that the latter at length consented to accept the new 
 gospel. But once Berne had embraced it, she far outstripped her preceptor 
 in religious zeal or fanaticism; and she took the lead in all the subsequent 
 religioso-political affairs of the country. Her central position, her rich and 
 extensive territory, her untiring industry, and her adroit and unscrupulous 
 diplomacy, gave her the ascendency over the other Protestant cantons, and 
 made her the leader in every great enterprise. It was through her intrigues 
 that Geneva was induced to receive the new doctrines; it was by her 
 triumphant physical power that the reformation was thrust down the 
 throats of the good Catholic people of Vaud. Bernese preachers, escorted 
 by Bernese bailiffs and spies, traversed all the north-western cantons, 
 scattering dissension wherever, they went, and establishing the new gospel, 
 either by intrigue or by force, wherever they could. Cautiously and 
 cunningly, but with an industry Xhat never tired, and a resolution that 
 never faltered, Berne pursued her Machiavellian policy; until, by one 
 means or another, about half of the Swiss confederation was torn from 
 Catholic unity, and bound at the same time, by strong political ties, to 
 herself. Thus she became the great leader of the Protestant, as Lucerne 
 has ever been that of the Catholic cantons of Switzerland. 
 
 It is from this elevated point of view, that M. de Haller looks down 
 upon the history of the Swiss reformation. Himself a Bernese, and, until 
 he became a Catholic,’ a Bernese counsellor as high in power and influence 
 as he was in wisdom and talents, he was eminently qualified to write a 
 history of the religious revolution in Switzerland. Candid and moderate 
 by nature, of an enlarged mind and comprehensive genius, his scrupulous 
 veracity has not been denied even by his strongest opponents ; while he 
 certainly had every opportunity to become thoroughly acquainted with 
 the events he relates. He assures us in his preface, that his history 
 “ cannot be taxed with exaggeration, for it has been faithfully derived 
 from Historical Fragments of the city of Berne, composed by a Bernese 
 ecclesiastic (Protestant) ; from the History of the Swiss, by Mallett, a‘ 
 Genevan Protestant; from that of Baron d’Alt, a Catholic, it is true, but 
 excessively reserved upon all that might displease the Bernese ; and above 
 all, in fine, from the History of the Reformation ii> Switzerland, by M. 
 Ruchat, a zealous Protestant minister and professor of belles-lettres at the 
 academy of Lausanne, to whom all the archives were opened for the 
 composition of his work.” ^ 
 
 This last named writer, whom he quotes continually, was a most violent 
 partisan of the Swiss reformation; and yet even he was compelled to 
 relate a large portion of the truth, mixed up, as usual, with much adroit 
 and canting misrepresentation. Thus he asserts, among other things, 
 “that the Catholic religion is idolatrous and superstitious, and that it 
 cannot be sustained but by ignorance, by interest, by violence, and by 
 
 1 For having become a Catiiolic, he was expelled from the council, probably in order ta prove 
 Protestant love of liberty! 2 P. ix. 
 
238 THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND.. 
 
 fraud.”* M. de Haller meets the injurious charge, not by asserting, but 
 by 'proving, from undeniable evidence, that the Swiss reformation was 
 established precisely by these identical means, and that it could not, in 
 fact, have been established otherwise. He says :— 
 
 “Protestants of good faith — and there are many such among our 
 separated brethren — will judge for themselves, from a simple exposition 
 of facts, whether it was not rather their own religion which was introduced 
 by ignorance, interest, violence, and fraud : by ignorance, for it was every 
 where the ignorant multitude that decided, without knowledge of the 
 cause, upon questions of faith and discipline, and this was carried so far 
 that even children of fourteen years were called to these popular assemblies; 
 by interest, for the robbery of churches, of temples, and of monasteries, 
 was the first act of the reformation ; by violence, for it was with armed 
 force that altars were overturned, images broken, convents pillaged, and 
 it became necessary to employ fire and sword, confiscation and exile, in 
 order to make the new religion prevail over the ancient belief; by lying 
 and by fraud, for Luther and Zuingle formally recommended both to 
 their followers as means of success, and their counsel has been followed 
 with fidelity and perseverance even unto our own day. We will now pass 
 on to the facts and the proof.”** 
 
 We defy any one to read attentively M. de Haller’s work, without 
 admitting that he has triumphantly proved all this, and even more, by 
 facts and evidence derived mainly from Protestant sources. Our limits 
 will not, of course, allow us to go into all the details of the evidence ; yet 
 we hope to be able to furnish enough to convince any impartial mind that 
 M. de Haller’s position is entirely sound and tenable. But first we must 
 glance rapidly at the manner in which the reformation was first introduced 
 into Berne ; which, as we have already intimated, subsequently exercised 
 so strong an influence, both religious and political, on other parts of 
 Switzerland. 
 
 It was slowly and cautiously that Berne embraced the new doctrines. 
 Long did she resist the intrigues of the Zurichers, and the wily arts of 
 their new apostle, Ulrich Zuingle. This man understood well the 
 character of the Bernese ; their wary distrust of any thing new, their 
 deeply seated self-interest, and their dogged obstinacy in maintaining 
 whatever they finally settled down upon. He well knew all this, and he 
 acted accordingly. Writing to Berchtold Haller, the first herald of the 
 new gospel at Berne, he advised moderation and caution ; “for,” says he, 
 “ the minds of the Bernese are not yet ripe for the new gospel.”^ In a 
 letter subsequently addressed to Francis Kolb, he uses this quaint language, 
 alluding to the cantonal type of Berne — the hear :— 
 
 “ My dear Francis ! proceed slowly, and not too rudely, in the business ; 
 do not throw to the hear at first but one sour pear along with a great 
 many sweet ones, afterwards two, then three ; and if he begin to swallow 
 them, throw him always more and more, sour and sweet, pellmell. 
 
 1 Quoted by de Haller, Pref. x. 
 
 2 Pref. X. and xi. lie gives us in a note, besides some curious facts about Zuingle, the following 
 
 passage from a letter of Luther to Melancthon, dated August 30, 1530 : “ When we will have nothing 
 more to fear, and when we shall bo left in repose, we will then repair all our present lies, our frauds, 
 and our acts of violence.'*' 3 Quoted by de Ilaller p. 18. 
 
 
 f 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 239 
 
 Finally, empty the sack altogether; soft, hard, sweet, sour, and crude ; 
 he will devour them all, and will not suffer any one to take them away 
 from him, nor to drive him away.” ‘ 
 
 Zuingle understood his men, and his arts succeeded even beyond his 
 most sanguine expectations. Berne vacillated for several years between 
 truth and error ; her policy was wavering and tortuous ; but at length 
 she threw her whole influence into the scale of the reformation ; and once 
 she had taken her position, she maintained it with her characteristic 
 obstinacy.’ 
 
 Though her counsels were often uncertain, yet, in the main, she had 
 continued faithful to the old religion up to the year 1527. On the 26th 
 of January, 1524, we find her delegates uniting with those of the twelve 
 cantons at Lucerne in a strong decree, unanimously passed, for the 
 maintenance of Catholicity.^ Shortly afterwards, she listened with respect 
 to the voice of the three Catholic bishops of Constance, Bale, and Lausanne, 
 who strongly urged the cantons to remain steadfast in their faith, and 
 who promised ” that if, in lapse of time, some abuses had glided into the 
 ecclesiastical state, they would examine the matter with unremitting 
 diligence, and abolish the abuses with all their power.”^ 
 
 In 1525-6, the terrible revolt of the peasants took place in Germany, 
 and penetrated even into Switzerland. It had certainly grown out of the 
 revolutionary principles broached by the reformers, and it was headed by 
 Protestant preachers, as M. Ruchat, himself a preacher, admits in the 
 following passage : ” Having at their head the preachers of the reform, they 
 pillaged, ravaged, massacred, and burnt every thing that fell into their 
 hands.”'’ Sartorius, another Protestant historian of Germany, admits the 
 same.® All social order was threatened with annihilation by these wild 
 fanatics, whose number was legion ; and Berne, appalled by the danger, 
 made a temporary truce with her tergiversation, recoiled from the precipice, 
 on the brink of which she had been standing, and fell back on her old 
 vantage ground of conservative Catholicity. On the 21st of May, 1526, 
 her grand council published an edict for the preservation of the old 
 religion, and its members bound themselves, hy a solemn oath, to maintain 
 it inviolate 
 
 Yet, in the following year, Berne revoked this decree, violated this 
 solemnly plighted oath, joined the reformation, and lent her whole influ¬ 
 ence to its propagation throughout Switzerland ! Her wavering ceased all 
 of a sudden, and her policy, hitherto tortuous and always unprincipled, now 
 became firmly settled. Not only she declared for the reformation, but she 
 'pared no labor, no intrigue, no money, — nothing, to make it triumph 
 every where. It was mainly through her subsequent efforts, that the 
 reformation was fastened on a large portion of the Swiss republic. By 
 what means this was accomplished, we have already intimated ; and now 
 we will furnish some of the principal specifications and evidence bearing 
 on the subject. The facts we are going to allege clearly prove this great 
 
 1 Quoted by de Haller, p. 18, note. 2 Ibid , p. 22. 3 Ibid., p. 23. 
 
 i Ibid., p. 23. 6 Ibid. 6 Ibid., ch. iv, p. 27 seqq. 
 
240 THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. 
 
 leading feature of the Swiss reformation : — that it was only by intrigue, 
 chicanery, persecution, and open violence, that it was finally established at 
 the city of Berne and throughout the canton, as well as in all the other 
 cantons where Bernese influence could make itself felt. 
 
 In 1528, a conference, or rather a species of Zuinglian council, was held 
 at Berne, for the purpose of deciding on the articles of faith to be adopted 
 in the proposed reformation. Zuingle was the master spirit of the assembly, 
 at which very few Catholics assisted. Ten articles, or theses, were there 
 adopted by the ministers; but, though drawn up with studied ambiguity 
 and vagueness, they were still signed only by a minority of the Bernese 
 clergy, the majority still clinging to the old faith. Yet the Bernese grand 
 council of state not only adopted and confirmed these articles, but enjoined 
 their adoption on all the people of the canton. Pastors and cuiates were 
 forbidden to teach any thing opposed to them ; the mass was abolished, 
 altars were to be demolished, images to be burnt, and the four bishops of 
 Switzerland were declared deprived of all jurisdiction ! Moreover, priests 
 were permitted to marry, and religious persons of both sexes to leave their 
 convents ; the ministers were ordered to preach four times each week under 
 penalty of suspension ; and finally the council reserved to itself the right 
 ^‘tb change this new religion if any one would prove to them any thing 
 better by the Scriptures.”* 
 
 Such was the tenor of the famous Bernese decree, by which the new 
 
 gospel was first established by law. Nor did it remain a dead letter, 
 
 Violence, sacrilege, and robbery rioted throughout the canton. The 
 
 churches of the Catholics were forcibly seized on, the altars were over- 
 
 • . . . 
 
 turned, the beautiful decorations of paintings and statuary were defaced or 
 broken to pieces, people were forbidden any longer to worship at the altars 
 and shrines of their fathers ; and very soon the whole canton presented the 
 appearance of a country through which an army of Vandals and Huns had 
 but lately marched. It is a certain and undoubted fact, that the reforma¬ 
 tion was forced upon the Bernese people, against the positive will of the 
 majority ! But the minority were active, untiring, revolutionary, and they 
 had the civil authorities to back them; the majority were often indifferent 
 and negligent; their natural protectors, the Inore zealous among the clergy, 
 had been compelled to fly ; and thus left alone, a flock without shepherds, 
 the people were at length wearied out and harassed into conformity. 
 
 To enforce the new religious law, commissioners -were sent from Berne 
 into all the communes of the canton, with instructions to address the people, 
 and to use every effort to induce them to embrace the new gospel. After 
 their harangues, the matter was to be immediately put to the popular vote, 
 boys of fourteen years being entitled to the privilege of suflfrage ! If the 
 majority went for the new gospel, even if this majority consisted but of one 
 voice, the minority were compelled to abandon the old religion, and the 
 mass was declared publicly abolished throughout the commune ! If, on 
 the contrary, the majority, as was often the case, in spite of every entreaty 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 52, 63. 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 241 
 
 and threat, went for the old religion, the Protestant minority still remained 
 free to practice publicly their worship. Moreover, in this latter case, the 
 vote of the commune was again taken by parishes, in order that those in 
 which the majority were Protestants might be protected by the civil 
 authority. Even if a commune voted unanimously in favor of Catholicity, 
 the possibility of practising their religion was taken away from the Catholics 
 by the banishment of their priests, and the stationing amongst them 
 of Protestant preachers; or if their Bernese Excellencies graciously 
 allowed them to retain their pastors, it was only for a time and until 
 farther orders!' 
 
 We ask whether all this was not downright tyranny of the worst kind; 
 and whether our assertion made above was at all exaggerated ? But this 
 is not yet all, nor even half. There were in Switzerland certain cities and 
 districts under the joint government and control of Berne, Friburg and 
 other Catholic cantons. To these Berne sent out her emissaries, both 
 religious and political. If they could bo gained over to the new religion, 
 they would probably throw off the yoke of their Catholic joint sovereigns, 
 and fall solely under the government of Berne, to say nothing of the spir¬ 
 itual good which would accrue to their souls from the new gospel. Hence 
 no money nor intrigue was to be spared to proselytize them. 
 
 The fiery minister, Farel, armed with Bernese passports, and accom¬ 
 panied or sustained by Bernese deputies and bailiffs, ran over these common 
 cities and districts, with the impetuous fuiy of one possessed by an evil 
 spirit. He stirred up seditions whitherseover he went, either against the old 
 religion or against himself; and his progress was every where marked by 
 conflagrations and ruins. In the bishopric of Bale, in several towns and 
 communes belonging to the present canton of Vaud, in Soleure, and else¬ 
 where, this furious fanatic and political firebrand agitated society to its 
 very depths, and lashed popular passions into a fuiy which was entirely 
 uncontrollable. Wherever the populace could be won over to his party, 
 or even overawed into silence, he caused the mass to be abolished, churches 
 to be stripped, pillaged, and sacrilegiously desecrated, and altars to be 
 overturned 1 And the Bernese authorities not only calmly looked on, but 
 they even sanctioned all these ferocious deeds, and cast the shield of their 
 protection around the person of Farel.^ 
 
 Insurrections and violence every where marked the progress of the refor¬ 
 mation. Look, for instance, at the following graphic picture of Switzerland 
 during the epoch in question, drawn by M. de Haller : 
 
 “During the years 1529, 1530, and 1531, Switzerland found herself in 
 a friiThtful condition, and altogether similar to that of which we are now 
 witnesses, three centuries later. Nothing was seen everywhere but hatred, 
 broils, and acts of violence ; everywhere reigned discord and division ; 
 discord between the cantons, discord in the bosom of the governments, 
 discord between sovereigns and subjects, in fine, discord and division even 
 in every parish and in every family. The defection of Berne, at which the 
 Zurichers had labored for six years, had unchained the audacity of all the 
 
 2 See ibid. p. 71 seq., for detailed proofs of all thin 
 
 19 
 
 1 Ibid pp. 5?,54. 
 
 z 
 
242 THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. 
 
 meddlers and bad men in Switzerland. On all sides new revolutions broke 
 out; — at Bale, at St. Gall, at Bienne, at Thurgovia, at Frauenfeld, at 
 Mellingen, at Bremgarten, even at Gaster and in the Toggenburg, at 
 Herissau, at Wettingen, and finally at SchaflFhousen. Everywhere they 
 were brought about by a band of poltroons or at least of ignorant bur¬ 
 gesses, both turbulent and factious, against the will of the intimidated 
 magistrates, and of the more numerous and peaceable portion of the 
 inhabitants who looked upon these innovations with horror, but whose 
 indignation was arrested and whose zeal was paralyzed, as happens during 
 our own days, by a pretended necessity of avoiding the effusion of blood, 
 and preventing the horrors of a civil war. Thus one party declared an 
 implacable war against their fellow-citizens and every thing that is sacred, 
 while the other was condemned to suffer without resistance all manner of 
 injuries, all manner of hostilities ; and this state of triumphant iniquity and 
 of miserable servitude was qualified by the fine name of peace. Everywhere, 
 except at Schaffhousen, a city which was always distinguished for its 
 tranquillity and the peaceful character of its inhabitants, seditious armed 
 mobs rushed of their own accord to the churches, broke down the altars, 
 burnt the images, destroyed the most magnificent monuments of art, pillaged 
 the sacred vases as well as other objects of value, and put up for public 
 sale at auction the sacred vestments: by such vandalism and by such 
 sacrileges was the religious revolution of the sixteenth century signalized.’' 
 
 Just imagine that the United States were densely populated and filled 
 with cities, and that the Catholic religion were that of the people ; but that 
 :a religious revolution had been effected in one of our great cities, — say 
 Philadelphia, — by violence, sustained by the civil authorities ; that there 
 all our churches had been pillaged and desecrated, a part of them burned 
 down and the other part seized on for the Protestant worship ; that the 
 frensy spread, until similar scenes were enacted in half the cities and towns 
 of our republic ; imagine, in a . word, the Philadelphia riots, aggravated a 
 hundred fold, extending through half the country, and keeping the people 
 in a state of anarchy and civil war for more than twenty years; imagine 
 our hitherto peaceful republic broken up by discord, and bathed in the 
 blood of its citizens, until at last the fierce rioters sit down in triumph 
 amidst the ruins they had every where strewn around them; and you will 
 then have some faint conception of the rise, progress, and triumph of the 
 Protestant reformation in a large portion of Switzerland ! Recent events, 
 both in this country and in Switzerland, have proved that Protestantism 
 has not yet lost all of its original fierceness, and that its turbulent spirit 
 .has not been yet entirely subdued by the onward march of refinement and 
 •civilization. 
 
 As might have been anticipated, the Bernese met with frequent 
 resistance in their -eft’orts to destroy the old religion, and to force the new 
 •one on the people. Popular insurrections broke out at Aigle, and in the 
 bailiwicks of Lentzburg, Frutigen, Interlaken, and Haut-Siebenthal, as 
 well as in other places. How was this resistance met? It was crushed 
 by main force, probably with a view to demonstrate to all the world how 
 sincerely the Bernese were attached to the great fundamental principles 
 
 1 Pp. 62—64. 
 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 ^243 
 
 of the reformation,— that each one should read the Bible and judge for 
 himself! As M. de Haller says: 
 
 “An edict of persecution was issued, which directed that images should 
 be everywhere broken and altars demolished, as well in the churches as 
 in private houses; that priests who yet said mass should be everywhere 
 hunted down, seized on wherever they could be caught, and put in prison; 
 that every one who spoke badly of the Bernese authorities should be 
 treated in like manner; for, says M. Ruchat, the Catholics of the canton 
 and vicinity declaimed horribly against them. In case of relapse, the 
 priests were outlawed and delivered up to public vengeance : in fine, the 
 same edict decreed punishment against all who should sustain these refrac¬ 
 tory priests (that is, all who remained faithful to the ancient religion), or 
 who afforded them an a5\ylum. A third edict of the 22d December, 
 forbade any one to go into the neighboring cantons to hear mass, under 
 penalty of deprivation for those who held office, and of arbitrary punish¬ 
 ment for private individuals.”* 
 
 Was ever tyranny and persecution carried further than this ? And yet 
 this is but one chapter in the history of the Swiss reformation. The same 
 ferocious intolerance was witnessed wherever the reformation made its 
 appearance, in the once peaceful and happy land of William Tell. Did our 
 limits permit, we might prove this by facts, as undeniable as they are 
 appalling. Those Catholic priests who were not willing to betray their 
 religion, or to sell their conscience for a mess of pottage, were every¬ 
 where thrown into prison or banished the country. They were succeeded 
 by preachers, many of them fugitives from France and Germany, and 
 most of them men of little learning and less piety, remarkable only for a 
 certain boldness and rude popular eloquence or declamation. Men of this 
 stamp, who had suddenly, and often without vocation or ordination, 
 
 . intruded themselves into the holy ministry, could not hope to win or 
 secure the confidence of the people. Accordingly, we find the following 
 candid avowal on the subject, in a confidential letter of the minister Capito 
 to Farel, written as late as 1537. He says: 
 
 “The authority of the ministers is entirely abolished; all is lost, all 
 goes to ruin. The people say to us boldly: you wish to make yourselves 
 the tyrants of the Church, you wish to establish a new papacy. God 
 , makes me know what it is to be a pastor, and the wrong we have done the 
 Church by the precipitate^nd inconsiderate vehemence which has (Mused us 
 to reject the Pope, For the people, accustomed to unbounded freedom, and 
 as it were nourished by it, have spurned the rein altogether; they cry out 
 to us: we know enough of the gospel, what need have we of your help to 
 find Jesus Christ? Go and preach to those who wish to hear you.”^ 
 
 The intolerance of the Protestant party was surpassed only by its utter 
 inconsistency. The glorious privileges of private judgment, of liberty of 
 conscience and of the press, were forever on their lips; and yet they 
 recklessly trampled them all under their feet 1 Each one was to interpret 
 the Bible for himself, and yet he who dared interpret it differently from their 
 Excellencies, the counsellors of Berne, was punished as an enemy of the 
 government! The counter principle of a union of church and state, was 
 
 1 Pp. 57, 58 2 Epistola ad Farel. inter opist. Calvini, p. 6; quoted by de Haller, p. 99, note. 
 
244 THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. 
 
 even openly avowed and constantly acted on. The council of ministers, 
 held at Berne in 1532, subscribed a confession of faith drawn up by Capito, 
 in which the following remarkable passages are found: 
 
 ** The ministers acknowledge it is not possible for them to produce 
 any fruit in their church, unless the civil magistrate lend his assistance to 
 advance the good work. . . . Every Christian magistrate ouglit, in the 
 exercise of his power, to be the lieutenant and minister of God, and to 
 maintain among his subjects the evangelical doctrine and life, so far at 
 least as it is exercised outwardly and is practised in external things.' .... 
 The magistrates should then take great care to preserve sound doctrine; to 
 prevent error and seduction, to punish blasphemy and all outward sins 
 affecting religion and conduct, to protect the truth and good morals.”^ 
 
 This forcibly reminds us of the doctrines of the nursing fathers, so 
 much spoken of, even in our American Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
 As some additional evidence of the love which the Swiss reformers bore 
 to the liberty of the press and to that of conscience, read the two 
 following extracts from our author : 
 
 “ The Bernese, who had talked so much about the liberty of conscience 
 and that of the press while it was a question of establishing the reform, then 
 sent deputies to Bale to complain of the libels which were there printed 
 against the deputies of Berne, and they demanded that silence should be 
 jmposed on the preachers unfavorable to the reform-. Thus it is that the 
 Protestants did not wish to allow liberty to any one, so soon as they 
 became the masters. The Bernese deputation was, however, dismissed 
 from Bale without having attained its object.”^ 
 
 In virtue of the freedom of conscience, the triumphant innovators 
 removed all the Catholic counsellors, and forbade any one to preach against 
 what they called the reform. At Bale, in particular, the nobility were 
 driven away, and the Catholic clergy, the chapter, and even the professors 
 of the university, abandoned forever a city of which they were the 
 ornament and the glory, and which owed to them its lustre and its very 
 existence.” ^ 
 
 Those who were guilty of the unpardonable crime of adhering tena¬ 
 ciously and fondly to the time-honored religion of their fathers, were 
 not the only ones who felt the smart of Protestant intolerance in Swit¬ 
 zerland. Brother Protestants were also persecuted, if they had the 
 misfortune to believe either more or less thali their more enlightened 
 brethren, who happened to be orthodox for the time being. The Anabap¬ 
 tists, in particular, were hunted down with a ferocity which is almost 
 inconceivable. The favorite mode of punishing them, especially at Berne, 
 was by drowning ! This manner of death was deemed the most appropriate, 
 because it was only baptizing them in their own way ! ® The rivers and 
 lakes, which abound in Switzerland, often received the dead bodies of these 
 poor deluded men. Sometimes, however, this mode of punishment was 
 dispensed with in favor of others less revolting to humanity. Says M. de 
 Haller: 
 
 “ Their Excellencies of Berne, not being able to convince the AnabaptistS; 
 
 1 l)e Haller, p. 97- Ue quotes lluchat. 2 Ibid p, 100. 3 Pp. 68, 59. 
 
 4 P. 64. 6 See pp. 39, 69, et ahbipassim. 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 245 
 
 found it much more simple to banish them, or to throw them into the 
 water and drown tliern. These punishments having, however, rather 
 increased than diminished their number, the council of Berne, being 
 embarrassed, resorted to measures less severe, and acting under the advice 
 of the ministers, published on the 2d of March, 1533, an edict announcing 
 that the Anabaptists should be left in peace, if they would keep their 
 belief to tliemselves, and maintain silence ; but that if they continued to 
 preach and to keep up a separate sect, they should not be any longer 
 condemned to death, but only to perpetual imprisonment on bread and 
 WATER ! This was certainly a singular favor. Catholics, who are 
 accused of so much intolerance, had never molested the Zuinglians who 
 had kept their faith to themselves, and even when these openly preached 
 their doctrines from the pulpit, they were not condemned either to death 
 or to perpetual imprisonment on bread and water.” ‘ 
 
 As we have already said, the progress of the Swiss reformation was 
 everywhere marked by intrigues, popular commotions, mob violence, and 
 sacrilege. So it was at Geneva, into which the reformation was intro¬ 
 duced in the year 1535, chiefly again through the intrigues of Berne. It 
 was not Calvin who established the reformation at Geneva; he only 
 reaped the harvest which had been sown by others. The fiery Farel, 
 shielded with the panoply of Bernese protection and acting in concert with 
 Bernese envoys, had already succeeded in there subverting, to a great 
 extent, the ancient faith. And by what means ? We have not room for 
 full details, for which we must refer our readers to a very interesting 
 chapter in M. de Haller’s history.^ Suffice it to say, that the whole city 
 was thrown into commotion ; that the Catholic churches were violently 
 seized upon, after having been first sacrilegiously defaced and desecrated 
 in the hallowed name of religion ; that the Catholic clergy were hunted 
 down and forced to fly the city; that nearly half of the population was 
 compelled to emigrate, in order to secure to themselves peace and freedom 
 of conscience ; that even after they had emigrated, their property was 
 confiscated and they were disfranchised, in punishment for their having 
 dared leave the city; that the harmless nuns of St. Clare, after having 
 been long harassed and insulted by the mob, were also compelled to 
 leave their home and to seek shelter elsewhere ; that the Catholic church 
 property was seized upon by the reformed party ; that, after having filled 
 the whole city, and especially the churches, with the “ abomination of 
 desolation,” Farel and his associates were able to assemble congre¬ 
 
 gations and to preach, in only two out of the many Genevan churches 
 of which they had obtained possession ; that even in these they often 
 preached to empty benches, so great was the horror which all these 
 multiplied sacrileges inspired in the popular mind ; and that, finally, the 
 reformation was established in Geneva by the great council, and after¬ 
 wards by the swords and bayonets of the Bernese array, which entered 
 the city in 1536 ! 
 
 Such were the first fruits of the reformation in Geneva. In the canton 
 
 * 
 
 of Vaud, which was invaded and subdued by the Bernese army in the 
 
 1 I'p. lo3, 154. 2 Chap xvi. 
 
 Z2 
 
 
246 THE KEEOBMATION IN SWITZERLAND. 
 
 same year, the proceedings were, if possible, still more violent, and the 
 policy still more truculent. Wheresover the Bernese army marched, there 
 the reformation was established by force of arms. The Bernese bore the 
 sword in one hand and the Bible in the other; and they established^ 
 the new gospel in Vaud pretty much after the Mohammedan fashion of 
 proselytism! 
 
 M. de Haller proves all this by an array of evidence, which can neither 
 be gainsayed nor resisted.‘ He proves it from the testimony of Ruchat, 
 Mallet, Spon, and other Protestant historians. He furnishes facts, with 
 names, dates, and specifications \ facts as clear as the noonday sun \ facts 
 which we challenge any one to deny or contravene. And we ask, whether 
 it be at all likely tliat a reformation effected by such means, was, or could 
 possibly have been, the work of God ? Could God have chosen such 
 instruments and such means to effect His work ? Could He smile on 
 commotions, on riots, on robbery, on impurity, on broken vows, on sacri¬ 
 lege ? Gracious heavens ! How much do those delude themselves, wlio 
 still clino- to the belief that the reformation was the work of God! Well 
 
 O 
 
 may we address to them, and to all who may chance to read these pages, 
 the emphatic words of St. Augustine prefixed to the title-page of M. de 
 Haller’s work : “ Let those hear who have not fallen, lest they fall; let 
 those hear who have fallen, that they may rise 1”^ 
 
 If it be alleged, that the Catholics too sometimes resorted to violence and 
 appealed to the sword; we answer that they did so, almost without an 
 exception, only in necessary self-defense. Their forbearance, amidst all 
 the terrible outrages which we have briefly enumerated, was indeed won¬ 
 derful. If they sometimes repelled force by force ; if they flew to arms 
 more than once in their own defense, it was surely competent for them to do 
 so. Their lives were threatened, their property was invaded, their altars 
 were desecrated; and surely, when consideiations such as these urg-ed them' 
 to buckle on their good swords, they were not only excusable, but they* 
 would have been arrant cowards had they failed to do so. And no one 
 has ever yet dared to taunt with cowardice the brave mountaineers of 
 Lucerne, Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, and Zug, who inherit the faith, the 
 country, and the unconquerable spirit of William Tell. The recent occur¬ 
 rences in Switzerland prove that this spirit has not flagged in the lapse of 
 centuries, that Catholicity is not incompatible with bravery; and that 
 soldiers who pray, both before and after battle, are under the special 
 protection of the great God of battles; though He, for His own wise and 
 inscrutable purposes, may permit them sometimes to be overwhelmed by 
 superior numbers. 
 
 But whoever will read M. de Haller’s history must be convinced, that the 
 Swiss Catholics were much more forbearing and tolerant than the Swiss 
 Protestants. The former, in general, allowed the latter the free exercise 
 of their religion in places where these were in the minority ; whereas there 
 
 1 See p 271 seqq and 321 seqq. 
 
 2 Audiant qui non cecideiuut, ne cadant; audiaut qui ceciderunt, ut surgant. 
 
 « 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 247 
 
 are, indeed, but few instances on record, where the latter accorded the same 
 privilege to the former under similar circumstances. Did our limits permit, 
 we might go fully into the comparison, and prove the accuracy of our 
 remark by undeniable evidence. But we must be content with a marginal 
 reference.' and with the following touching anecdote, the scene of which is 
 laid in the city of Soleure. 
 
 • The Protestant party had sought to gain the ascendency in this place, by 
 entirely overthrowing the Catholic religion. For this purpose they seized 
 upon the moment when nearly all the members of the council were absent, 
 for entering into a conspiracy to take possession of “ the arsenal and of the 
 Franciscan church, to surprise the priests in their bed, and to massacre all 
 the Catholics in case of resistance.”^ The conspiracy was, however, dis¬ 
 covered to the avoyer^ov chief magistrate, left in charge of the city—• 
 Nicholas de Wengi; and he took every prudent precaution against the 
 meditated attack. On the 30th day of October, 1533, at one hour after 
 midnight, the conspirators rushed to the assault; but they were amazed to 
 find nearly half the city turned out ready to receive them, and to defend 
 themselves to the last extremity. After a sharp encounter, in which the 
 arsenal was successively taken and retaken, without, however, any effusion 
 of blood, the conspirators were finally driven off. But, though beaten, 
 these had not yet given up the contest. They retired beyond the bridge, 
 and having intrenched themselves, began to insult the Catholics. Indig¬ 
 nant, the latter rushed to the arsenal, brought a cannon to bear upon the 
 Protestant intrenchment, and fired one shot, but without effect. Just as 
 they were preparing to fire another, the venerable avoyer Wengi rushed, 
 out of breath, before the cannon’s mouth, and exclaimed : “ Beloved and 
 pious fellow-citizens, if you wish to fire against the other side, I will bo 
 your first victim ; consider better the state of things.”^ His interposition 
 was effectual ; calm was restored ; and the insurgents left the city. 
 
 We will conclude this paper, already long enough, by glancing rapidly 
 at the war of Cappell in 1531, the first great religious war that ever was 
 waged in Switzerland.'* And we do this the more willingly, because it 
 seems to us that there is a striking parallelism between this first and the 
 last religious war to which we have already alluded. In both, the Cath¬ 
 olics acted strictly on the defensive ; in both. Lucerne was at the head -of 
 the Catholic party ; in both, the genuine children of Tell proved themselves 
 worthy of him, of their ancestral glory, of their country. There is, however, 
 this important difference in the two wars, that whereas in the first the 
 Catholics were triumphant, in the last, after having performed prodigies 
 of valor, they were finally overwhelmed by main force. 
 
 In the beginning of the year 1531, the Protestant cantons, and especially 
 Zurich, flagrantly violated the treaty concluded in 1529, by which the 
 Catholic and Protestant cantons had mutually promised not to molest or 
 
 1 I)e Haller, pp. 72, 150 note, 156, 272, &c, 
 
 2 I*. 157. 3 P. 159. 
 
 4 There had been some troubles in 1629, which were, however, settled without much effu.sion of 
 blood. 
 
248 THE REP.ORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. 
 
 interfere with one another on account of religion. After having fomented 
 troubles in various districts partly under the control of the Catholic cantons, 
 Zurich at length openly invaded the territory of St. Gall, and issued a 
 decree forbidding the five neighboring Catholic cantons to trade with her 
 subjects in corn and salt. The object of this embargo was, to cut off from 
 the Catholic mountaineers the supplies which they had been in the habit 
 of deriving by commerce from those living in the plains, and thereby to 
 starve them into acquiescence in the glorious work of the reformation! 
 Zuingle and the preachers openly clamored for the blood of the Catholics, 
 in their public harangues in Zurich. Here is an extract from one of the 
 great Swiss reformer’s sermons, delivered on the 21st September, 1531 : 
 
 “ Rise up, attack ; the five cantons are in your power. I will march at 
 the head of your ranks, and the nearest to the enemy. Then you will feel 
 the power of God, for when I shall harangue them with the truth of the 
 word of God, and shall say : whom seek you, 0 ye impious 1 then, seized 
 with terror and with panic, they will not be able to answer, but they will 
 fall ba(;k, and will take to flight, like the Jews on the mountain of Olives 
 at the word of Christ. You will see that the artillery which they will 
 direct against us, will turn against themselves, and will destroy them. 
 Their pikes, their halberds, and their other arms, shall not hurt you, but 
 will hurt them.”' 
 
 This discourse was printed and circulated; but alas for the prophetic 
 faculty of the reformer! The event falsified his prediction in every 
 particular. And, as Zuingle himself marked the preparations the five 
 cantons were making for the coming struggle, even his own heart failed 
 him; and the lately inspired prophet of God dwindled down into a 
 miserable poltroon, overcome by terror, and pretending to have had 
 strange presentiments, and observed strange signs in the heavens 1 
 Nevertheless, the Zurichers compelled him to march at their head to the 
 village of Cappel, near the confines of the hostile cantons. 
 
 Here the two armies encountered; but fiery and fanatical as were the 
 Zuinglians, they could not withstand the impetuous charge of the brave 
 • Swiss mountaineers. These carried everything before them. The Zu¬ 
 richers took to flight in great disorder, with the loss of “ nineteen cannon, 
 four stands of colors, all their baggage, and of at least fifteen hundred 
 men, among whom were twenty-seven magistrates, and fifteen preach¬ 
 ers.”^ Zuingle,^the apostle of Switzerland, fell, sword in hand, fighting 
 the battles of the Lord, as never apostle had fought them before ! 
 
 The Zurichers, however, recovered from their fright in a few days, and 
 on the 21st of October,^ “having been reinforced by their allies of Saint 
 Gall, of Toggenburg, of Thurgovia, and even of the Grisons, of Berne, of 
 Bale, and of Soleure, they again attacked the Catholics with very superior 
 
 •ces ; but they were a second time defeated at the mountain of Zug, and 
 took to flight in disorder, abandoning their artillery, their money, and 
 their batro'aii’e.”' 
 
 oo o 
 
 1 Quoted by de Haller, pj>. 78, 79, note. 2 Ibid, pp. 79, 80. 
 
 2 The battle of Cappell was fou-'ht on the 11th of October. 4 P 81. 
 
BERNESE INTRIGUES. 
 
 249 
 
 The Catholic army now marched in triumph almost to the very walls 
 of Zurich, after having a third time defeated the Zurichers, and driven 
 them from their position.' The Zuinglians, thus humbled by defeat, 
 were now disposed to accede to the terms of peace proposed by the 
 Catholic cantons. The treaty bound the Zurichers “to leave the five 
 cantons, with their allies and adherents, from the present to all future 
 time, in peaceable possession of their ancient^ true^ and undoubted 
 Christian faith, without molesting or importuning them with disputes or 
 chicanery, and renouncing all evil intentions, stratagems, and finesse ; and 
 that, on their side, the five cantons would leave the Zurichers and their 
 adherents free in their belief; that in the common districts, of which the 
 cantons were co-sovereigns, the parishes which had embraced the new 
 faith, might retain it if it suited them, that those which had not yet 
 renounced the ancient faith would also be free to retain it, and that, in 
 fine, those who should wish to return to the true and ancient Christian 
 faith would have the right to do so.’^ ^ The Zurichers farther bound 
 themselves'to pay or rather to restore to the five cantons, the money which 
 the latter had expended in the difficulties of 1529 ; and to replace, at their 
 own expense, the ornaments destroyed or forcibly taken from the different 
 churches during the preceding years. 
 
 Thus terminated the war of Cappell. It left the Catholics in the 
 ascendant, and contributed more than anything else to check the headlong 
 progress of the Swiss reformation. 
 
 l Pago. 88. 
 
 2 Pago. 85. 
 
XIII. PRESCOTT’S CONQUEST OF MEXICO.♦ 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 Prescott as an historian—Compared with other American writers—His style and manner—Qualities 
 essential to an historian—Prescott's research—His authorities—His accuracy—His impartiality— 
 His religious prejudices—The ghost of the Inquisition haunts him—His gross charges against th* 
 Catholic Church—His enthusiasm awakened—Itomantic character of the conquest—Rapid sketch 
 of its history—Character of the conquerors—Hernando Cortes—Compared with ancient generals— 
 Was the conquest justifiable ?—Principles and facts bearing on this question—Horrid human sacri¬ 
 fices among the Aztecs—The Spaniards and the Puritans compared—Were the conquerors wantonly 
 cruel ? — Facts and specifications alleged and explained—Palliating circumstances—Seizure of 
 Ulontezuma—And execution of Guatamozin—Prescott’s testimony—Spanish conquest of Mexico and 
 English conquest of Indiacompared—Cortes and Lord Clive—Macaulay. 
 
 The History of the Conquest of Mexico is truly a splendid work on a 
 splendid subject. Much as we expected from the accomplished historian 
 of the magnificent reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, our expectations have 
 not been disappointed in the present work. It not only fully sustains, but 
 it even elevates the character of Mr. Prescott as an historian. We view his 
 second as far superior to his first production, both in matter and manner; 
 and we have not a doubt, that if he persevere in the career upon which he 
 has so liappily entered, he will rank ere long among the very first, if not as 
 the first, of our writers, and will stand very high even in proud and jealous 
 Eno'land. 
 
 o 
 
 The style of the present work is chaste, polished, dramatic ; and it com¬ 
 pares favorably with that of any American writer with whom we are 
 acquainted, not excepting even the exquisite Washington Irving. It 
 combines something of the chaste smoothness and delicate taste of Irving, 
 with the liveliness of Paulding and Stephens ; while it is, to a great extent, 
 free from the carelessness and occasional bad taste of the two last, and of 
 Cooper ; and it is far superior, in every respect, to that of the inflated and 
 transcendental Bancroft. The constant sweetness of Irving cloys. After 
 perusing one of his works, you feel as if you had spent a day in a rich 
 flower garden, laid off with exquisite taste, and filled with the choicest 
 plants : you are delighted with every thing; you behold nothing to find 
 fault witli, but, in the evening, your head is wearied, and it aches with 
 .he excessive fragrance. 
 
 ^History of the Conquest of Mexico, with a Preliminary View of the Ancient Mexican 
 Civilization, and the Life of the Conqueror, Hernando Cortez. By William H. Prescott. 
 Author of the History of Ferdinand and Isabella. In 3 vols. 8 vo. pp. 488, 480, 524 
 Harper & Brothers, New York, 1843. 250 
 
CHARACTER OP THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 251 
 
 The atmosphere in which Mr. Prescott moves is less aromatic, but is, 
 perhaps for this, all the purer and more refreshing. His Conquest of 
 Mexico loses little by comparison with the Life of Columbus and Astoria, 
 perhaps the best historical works of Irving, — productions which do not 
 appear to come under the remark just made. In other respects, however, 
 Prescott falls greatly below Irving,— in modesty, in good humor, in 
 freedom from undue prejudice. 
 
 Still it would be exaggerated eulogy to say that Mr. Prescott’s style is 
 wholly faultless. The severe critic will perhaps find it too stiff and labored' 
 in the introduction, and occasionally too tame or careless in the body of 
 the work. The former evidently smells of the lamp; in it the writer appears 
 ill at ease ; he treads the stage clad in the buskin and uniform. In the 
 latter he descends, puts on a graceful deshabille, and intermingles carelessly 
 in the stirring scenes of life. And as far as style is concerned, we are 
 free to acknowledge, that we greatly prefer too much carelessness to too 
 great rigidity. 
 
 The introduction, comprising two hundred pages on the Aztec civiliza¬ 
 tion, is one of the most highly wrought and elaborate essays we have ever 
 read. This, together with another essay in the appendix to the third 
 volume, on the origin of the Aztec civilization, the author assures us, 
 
 cost him as much labor, and nearly as much time, as the remainder of the 
 history.”* The inquiry into the origin of the Aztec civilization furnishes 
 a very learned, though somewhat skeptical, view of the various theories of 
 antiquaries, for explaining what Mr. Prescott calls, “ the riddle of the 
 Sphinx, which no GEdipus has yet had the ingenuity to solve.”^ And the 
 result of his labors proves that he himself is no CEdipus; he reaches a con¬ 
 clusion which strongly reminds us of that of Johnson’s Rasselas,,“ in which 
 
 nothinof is concluded.’’^ 
 
 o I _ 
 
 The introduction embodies, in a highly condensed form, whatever Cla- 
 vigero, Sahagun, Torquemada, Boturini, Veytia, Camargo, Ixtlilxochitl,^ 
 Baron Humboldt, Lord Kingsborough, and other learned antiquaries had 
 written on the"interesting subject of the Aztec civilization. From it we 
 gather, that however advanced the nations of Anahuac might have been in 
 civilization, they were still in a very rude and and savage condition. Their 
 ignorance of the metals, and of the use of domestic beasts of burden ; their 
 imperfect and cumbrous picture-writing; their mean and crouching sub¬ 
 serviency to the will of a despot; and above all, their brutish cannibalism, 
 and their loathsome human sacrifices, all contributed to sink them very 
 low in the scale of civilization. From their semi-civilized, or rather wholly 
 barbaric condition, even Voltaire could not contrive to make out a plausible 
 'argument, or even a sneer, against Christianity. 
 
 It appears to us that Mr. Prescott’s forte lies in description. Many of 
 
 1 Pref. p. X. 2 Prescott iii, 376. 3 Cf. Ibid, iii, 418. 
 
 4 Tile Mexican name of a distinp:uished Indian writer—the lord of Tezcuco. Those wlio are 
 fitartied at this euphonious name, may fry whether they can pronounce, ac a Ineath. the following 
 specimens of Mexican diction : Nottazornahuiztcopixcatatzin, the name of a priest; or this name of a 
 Amatlacuilolitquitcatlaxtlahuitli ! ! See Prescott, iii, 395 note. 
 
252 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 his descriptions, whether of scenery, of battles, or of natural phenomena, 
 are peculiarly dramatic : some of tliem have the vividness of pictures. We 
 might furnish many examples of this from the History of the Conquest. 
 But we have much to say on a theme so ample and inviting, and our limits 
 are very contracted. Hence we must reluctantly confine ourselves to 
 those passages which will naturally come up in the train of our remarks; 
 and we can barely allude to the following additional ones which struck us 
 forcibly, viz : the graphic description of a storm which broke over Mexico 
 on the night of the Conquestthe vivid account of the storming of the 
 great temple by Cortez and his veterans and the lively manner in which 
 are painted the dreadful horrors of the Noclie Triste? 
 
 But style, however important, is not everything in an historian. It is to 
 him what drapery is to a statue. To ascertain the real merit of the work, 
 we should examine the proportions and symmetry of tlie figure itself, its 
 fidelity as a representation of the original, and the amount of artistic skill 
 displayed in its formation. Research, accui-acy, and impartiality, are three 
 essential qualities of a good historian. 
 
 Without the first, he were wholly unqualified for the task ; he would be 
 like an artist without suitable materials and tools. Without the second, all 
 research, however laborious, would be thrown away ; and the historian 
 would resemble the statuary, who, with polished instruments and beautiful 
 marble, should still, through carelessness or want of genius, execute but a 
 wretched piece. Finally, without the third, all previous research, as well 
 as the sincere wish to be accurate, would generally prove unavailing: the 
 historian would perhaps unconsciously miscolor or misstate facts. His 
 work would resemble that of a painter who, thougli not deficient in labor, 
 mechanical skill, and exactness, should yet spoil his piece with misplaced 
 or excessive coloring. 
 
 Does Mr. Prescott possess these three qualities essential to an historian ? 
 We would be much pleased to be able to answer, without exception or res¬ 
 ervation, in the affirmative : we are really partial to the man, who, besides 
 being a fellow-countryman, exhibits himself in his writings the easy and 
 polished gentleman. We feel no disposition to do him the least injustice ; 
 and deeply do we regret that a love of truth compels us to give different 
 answers in regard to these different characteristics of the historian. 
 
 His laborious research is unquestionable. He has thoroughly examined, 
 and seems to have carefully sifted all the original authorities in relation 
 to the Conquest. To obtain the necessary documents, many of which 
 were in manuscript, he spared no labor nor expense. The great facilities 
 which his previous researches had already afforded him, while he was 
 preparing the History of Ferdinand and Isabella, were still farther 
 increased by the kindness and liberality of many of the leading Spanish 
 literati of the day. He was allowed free access to the valuable papers 
 collected with great labor and care by Don Juan Baptista Munoz, the 
 indefatigable royal historiographer of the Indies; as well as to those of 
 1 I’rt'Scott, iij, 208, et seq. 2 Ibid, ii, 334, et. seq. 3 Ibid, ii, 861, et, seq 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 253 
 
 Don Vargas Ponce, the late president of the royal academy of history at 
 Madrid, The present liberal president of this academy, the learned and 
 accomplished Don Martin Fernandes de Xavarette, also permitted the free 
 use of his numerous manuscripts.* 
 
 From these ample collections, the accumulation of half a century, he 
 obtained no less than eight thousand pages of unpublished documents.** 
 He was also greatly aided in his task by men of distinguished learning in 
 Mexico; among whom he names with gratitude Count Cortina, Don 
 Lucas Alaman, the minister of foreign affairs, and his friend, Don Angel 
 Calderon de la Barca, late minister plenipotentiary of the court of Madrid 
 to the Mexican republic, and subsequently to the United States.® 
 
 To these abundant sources of information, was added the liberal aid of 
 several Italian scholars of eminence, among whom the most conspicuous was 
 the duke of Monteleone, the heir and representative of Cortes, who freely 
 communicated the family papers.'* With all these facilities, Mr. Prescott 
 was enabled to give to the world, we believe for the first time, the whole 
 substance, and a partial translation of the famous fifth despatch or Carta 
 Quinta of Cortes, detailing the startling events of his dreadful march 
 through Chiapato Honduras.® 
 
 Most of the original histoi-ians of the Conquest, as well as -those who 
 composed the earliest and best accounts of it from the original authorities, 
 were either Spaniards or Mexicans. To the former class — by far the 
 most numerous and important — belong the terse and vigorous Cortes 
 himself, the sympathetic, enthusiastic and exaggerating Las Casas, the 
 faithful Torquemada, the profound antiquary Sahagun, the concise and 
 elegant Gomara, the pious and learned Toribio, the classical Herrera, the 
 judicious Zurita, the brilliant though more recent De Solis, and last, not 
 least, that charming old gossipping chronicler, Bernal Diaz, himself one 
 of the Conquerors. To the latter belong the accomplished and elaborate 
 Father Clavigero, a native of Vera Cruz ; the learned and diffuse 
 Ixtlilxochitl, the lord of Tezcuco ; Munoz Camargo, the historian of 
 Tlascala ; and the later Antonio Mariano, Veytia, Gama, and Archbishop 
 Lorenzana.® 
 
 To these authors we may add Boturini, a learned antiquary, who, 
 though an Italian by birth, yet wrote in Spanish. And be it borne in 
 mind, that the most ancient and famous of all these writers—Sahagun, 
 Torquemada, Gomara, Las Casas, Toribio, and Clavigero — were all 
 Catholic priests. But for their labors and patient researches, in fact, our 
 accounts of the Conquest would have been meagre indeed. 
 
 All these early historians our author seems to have thoroughly studied 
 and examined. Appropriate references to them fill the margin of his 
 pages. He furnishes chapter and verse for every important statement; 
 and where the original authors disagree, he seems fairly to canvass their 
 
 1 Pref. pp. Ti. Tii. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.. 4 Ibid. viii. 
 
 6 Volume iii. p 27£l, et seq. and Appendix, No. XIV. 
 
 6 Mr. Prescott furnishes ns with excellent and well written sketches of all these distinguished 
 writers: and this is perhaps one of the greatest merits of his book. 
 
 2 A 
 
254 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 respective weight and arguments. We are delighted with this: there is 
 some satisfaction in reading an author who thus proves himself fully 
 acquainted with his subject. No one who has carefully perused the 
 history of the Conquest can deny to the accomplished writer the praise of 
 ample research. 
 
 His general accuracy seems equally unquestionable. Whenever his 
 judgment is not unduly biassed, he does substantial justice both to the 
 subject, and to the character of the Conquerors. He manifests in general 
 a charming moderation, and he furnishes his readers with the arguments 
 on both sides of the more important questions which arise. Perhaps he 
 even carries this apparent fairness too far: he occasionally falls into the 
 error of the modern eclectic school of history, which makes it fashionable 
 to support both sides of an historical argument with so much plausibility, 
 as almost to bewilder the understanding, and to leave the real position of 
 the historian a complete puzzle.* 
 
 But the most important question is r.was he really impartial ? Did he 
 approach the subject with a mind free from all undue bias ? Was there 
 no lurking prejudice to cause obliquity of view ? In other words, would 
 he have drawn precisely the same picture of the Conquerors, had they not 
 been Roman Catholics ? Has he, in one word, redeemed the pledge given 
 by himself in his preface ? — 
 
 “ I have endeavored not only to present a picture true in itself, but to 
 place it in its proper light, and to put the spectator in a proper point of 
 view for seeing it to the best advantage. I have endeavored at the 
 expense of some repetition to surround him with the spirit of the times, 
 and, in a word, to make him, if I may so express myself, a cotemporary 
 of the sixteenth century. Whether, and how far, I have succeeded in this, 
 he must determine.^^ 
 
 Availing ourselves of the privilege thus extended to us, as one of his 
 readers, we regret to have to express the deliberate conviction, that he 
 has not “ succeeded ” in accomplishing, to the full, what he “ endeavored” 
 to do, with so much apparent honesty of purpose. More than once 
 religious prejudice has betrayed him into grievous error, as well as into, 
 gross injustice to the Conquerors. And we say it the more freely, as it is 
 almost the only stain on an otherwise faultless book,— a dark spot, or 
 rather a collection of spots on the sun,— which, however, it requires no 
 telescope to discover. We regret this fault the more, as such prejudice is 
 wholly unworthy the enlightened and moderate mind of Mr. Prescott; and 
 it will add nothing to his posthumous fame. 
 
 What particular set of religious opinions he entertains, or whether he 
 entertain any, we have no means of ascertaining. From some passages in 
 his work, we would infer that his religious tenets sit very lightly on him. 
 
 1 We have defected a few inaccuracies, not, however, of much moment. We will mention one- 
 Inanote(vol. i, p. 280), he alleges this testimony of a Spanish writer: ‘‘Cortes came into the 
 world the same day that that infernal beast, the false heretic, Luther, went out of ic,” and he 
 concludes from it, that, according to this writer, Cortes was born in 1483. Now this is the date, not 
 of Luther's ‘‘ going out of the world,’’ which happened in 1546, but of his “ coming into it.” There 
 is an error somewhere. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 255 
 
 But one thing is certain: his prejudices against every person and thing 
 Catholic flow in a strong and turbid current, whicli bears him along on 
 its foamy waters, and overwhelms at times his otherwise clear intellect. 
 We will furnish a few out of many proofs of this, to show how much 
 fairness and impartiality we may expect, even from the polishc I Mr. 
 Prescott, whenever our religious principles are involved. These specifi¬ 
 cations will further enable the impartial to judge, with how many grains 
 of allowance many of his statements concerning the essentially religious 
 character of the Conquest and of the Conquerors are to be received. 
 
 He seems to be terribly haunted by the ghost of the defunct Spanish 
 Inquisition. Its “ raw head and bloody bones ” must have been an 
 almost hourly apparition to him, while engaged in preparing his work; 
 and we have no doubt that he was often startled, amidst his historical 
 researches, by suddenly observing its fiery eye-balls fiercely glaring at 
 him through the keyhole of his study ! Foully has he been dealt with, 
 and grossly misled, by that miscreant traitor and apostate, Llorente.* It 
 is really deplorable, that a man of Mr. Prescott’s liberal and enlightened 
 mind should have permitted his credulity to be thus sported with by such 
 a wretch. 
 
 That this language is not too severe, will be manifest from the following 
 extracts from the History of the Conquest. Speaking of the horrible 
 human sacrifices enjoined by the Aztec religion, he says: 
 
 Thus we find the same religion inculcating lessons of pure philan¬ 
 thropy on the one hand, and of merciless extermination, as we shall soon 
 see, on the other. The inconsistency will not appear incredible to those 
 who are familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the 
 early ages of the inquisition.” ‘ 
 
 According to him the Aztec priests, preparing their victims for the 
 dreadful sacrifice and gloating over their excruciating tortures, were but 
 the inquisitors, or as he says in another place, the “Dominicans” of the 
 new world ! 
 
 “It should be remarked, however, that such tortures were not the 
 spontaneous suggestions of cruelty, as with the North American Indians ; 
 but were all religiously prescribed in the Aztec ritual, and doubtless were 
 often inflicted with the same compunctious visitings which a devoutfamiliar 
 of the holy office might at times experience in executing its stern decrees.” ^ 
 
 In the course of his History, he drags in this odious comparison by the 
 heels, usque ad nauseam; and he even seems greatly to prefer the human 
 sacrifices of the Aztecs to those made by the inquisition! Thus, to 
 reconcile his exaggerated theory of the Aztec civilization with the practice- 
 of human sacrifices in Anahuac, he says: 
 
 One may, perhaps, better understand the anomaly, by reflecting on the 
 condition of some of the most polished countries in Europe, in tlie sixteenth 
 century, after the establishment of the modern inquisition; an institution 
 which yearly destroyed its thousands, by a death more painful than the 
 
 1 The character of this man has been already exhibited, in our paper on the Spanish Inquisition. 
 
 2 Vol I, p. 71. 3 Ibid. p. 77. 
 
256 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 Aztec sacrifices: which armed brother against brotlier, and setting its 
 burning seal upon the lip, did more to stay the march of improvement 
 than any other scheme ever devised by human cunning. . . The inquisi¬ 
 tion, on the other hand, branded its victims with infamy in this world, 
 and consigned them to everlasting perdition in the next. One detestable 
 feature of the Aztec superstition, however, sunk it far below the Christian. 
 This was its cannibalism,’' &c.‘ 
 
 In another place he generalizes this loud declamation against the Spanish 
 inquisition by unequivocally ascribing the alleged cruelties of that tribunal 
 to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Mark the spirit which breathes 
 in the following sweeping assertion, to establish the truth of which he 
 refers his readers, in a note, to his History of Ferdinand and Isabella: 
 
 But it should be remembered that religious infidelity at this period, 
 and till a much later, was regarded—no matter whether founded on 
 ignorance or education, whether hereditary or acquired, heretical or 
 pagan — as a sin to be punished with fire and faggot in this world, and 
 eternal suffering in the next. This doctrine, monstrous as it is, was the 
 creed of the Romish (!), in other words, of the Christian Church, — the 
 basis of the inquisition, and of those other species of religious persecution, 
 which have stained the annals, at one time or other, of nearly every 
 nation in Christendom.” ^ 
 
 Such assertions deserve no comment, except that of just indignation or 
 pity, that one who should have known better, has thought proper thus to 
 travel out of his way, and to abandon the legitimate province of history, 
 in order foully to asperse the religious principles of the oldest and most 
 numerous body of Christians on the face of the earth,—-of a body which 
 was alone for fifteen hundred years in its championship of Christianity,— 
 of a body, without whose advocacy of Christian principles, and guardian¬ 
 ship of the Bible, Mr. Prescott himself would not, in all probability, have 
 at this day the little religion with which he is blessed. What had the 
 Spanish inquisition to do with a history of the Spanish conquest ? 
 
 But the inquisition apart, what right had he deliberately to charge on 
 the Catholic Church the practice and advocacy of idolatry ? Was this, 
 too, necessary to the integrity of his History ? It is true he advances 
 this accusation with some qualification and apparent misgiving; yet he 
 advances it plainly enough. Speaking of the use, by Catholics, of 
 “material representations of divinity,”—which, by the way, are not half 
 so common among Catholics, as he would seem to imagine,—he says: 
 
 “It is true, such representations are used by him (the Catholic) only 
 as incentives, not as the objects of worship. But this distinction is lost 
 on the savage, who finds such forms of adoration too analogous to his 
 own to impose any great violence on his feelings. It is only required of 
 him to transfer his homage from the image of Quetzalcoatl, the benevolent 
 deity who walked among .men, to that of the Virgin or Redeemer ; from 
 the cross which he has Avorshiped as the emblem of the god of rain, to 
 the same cross, the symbol of salvation.”^ 
 
 The bigotry of this passage is only surpassed by its absurdity. Is the 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 83, 84. 
 
 2 Vol. ii, p. 30. 
 
 3 Vol. i, pp. 291, 293. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 257 
 
 Virgin, is the cross a divinity ? Or was either ever held as such by any 
 Catholic that ever breathed ? And so the poor savages could not be taught 
 the distinction between stocks and stones, and the Divinity “who dwelleth 
 in lio;ht inaccessible!” 
 
 It would seem, in fact, that, Mr. Prescott’s natural acuteness wholly 
 abandons him, whenever he enters on the hallowed ground of religious 
 discussion. Once he has set his foot within the sanctuary, he plays all 
 mannner of fantastic tricks, among which casting somersets — self- 
 contradiction— is perhaps the most conspicuous.* Take the following 
 passage as a specimen of this : 
 
 “ It was not difficult to pass from the fasts and festiv^als of the one 
 religion (the Aztec), to the fasts and festivals of the other (the Chris¬ 
 tian) ; to transfer their homage from the fantastic idols of their own 
 creation, to the beautiful forms in sculpture and in painting, which 
 decorated the Christian cathedral. It is true, they could have compre¬ 
 hended little of the dogmas of their new faith, and little, it may be,, of its 
 vital spirit. But if the philosopher may smile at the reflection, that 
 conversion, under these circumstances, was one of form rather than of 
 substance, the philanthropist will console himself by considering how 
 much the cause of humanity and good morals must have gained by the 
 substitution of these unsullied rites, for the brutal abominations of the 
 Aztecs,”^ 
 
 If Mr, Prescott’s picture of the conversion of the Aztecs be faithful, 
 —which it is not,— the philosopher, one would think, should rather 
 weep than smile over its sad want of reality. If, however, he belong 
 Co the school of Democritus, rather than of Heraclitus, and have smiles 
 to throw away, he might bestow one of the merriest on Mr. Prescott 
 himself, for his singular consistency in styling unsullied tliose rites which 
 he had just before said were sullied with the grossest and most stupid 
 idolatry ! 
 
 But the most singular instance of the bigotry of Mr. Prescott against 
 every thing Catholic is yet to come. Who would ever have thought that 
 the Spanish renegade and apostate, the notable and veracious Blanco White, 
 — whose apostasy was so amply remunerated, if it was not purchased by 
 British gold,— was a competent authority for reference in the history of 
 the Conquest? Yet it is even so. Mr. Prescott — the smooth and retined 
 Mr. Prescott — actually alleges his authority, in a note, to confirm or 
 illustrate the following precious morceau in the text: 
 
 “But the doctrines (of Catholic Christianity) were too abstruse to be 
 comprehended at a glance by the rude intellect of a barbarian. And 
 Montezuma may have, perhaps, thought jt was not more monstrous to feed 
 on the flesh of a fellow-creature, than on that of the Creator himself 
 
 The shocking grossness of this passage, is equaled only by its glaring 
 impiety, bordering on blasphemy, and by the lamentable ignorance it 
 
 1 Vir. Prescott does not seem to admit the soundness of Petit .lean’s wise niaxiin iu the '‘Plaideurs” 
 of Kacine: “0 dame! On ne court pas deux lievres a la fois!” In the historic chase he often 
 etarta and follows two or more hare.s at once! Hence liis blunders iitid inconsistencies. 
 
 2 Vol. iii, pp. 257, 25S. 3 Vol. ii, pp. 88, and note. 
 
 2 A2 
 
 20 
 
258 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 displays. It is worthy of those carnal-minded Jews of Capharnaum, 
 who asked: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”* And so 
 revolting is it, in fact, that it has drawn down upon the author’s head a 
 severe and well merited rebuke from one of the leadinsf American Reviews.^ 
 
 We might present many more extracts breathing a similar spirit; but 
 what we have already furnished will suffice for tlie present, and the 
 subject may recur in the sequel. We would ask whether Mr. Prescott, 
 with all those gross and bitter prejudices, could have entered cordially 
 into the feelings, and given proper explanations of the motives and conduct 
 of men whose religion he so cordially hated ? Like Diogenes, trampling 
 with his muddy feet the costly carpets of Plato, he rebukes, with still 
 greater bigotry,^ the imputed bigotry of the Spaniards. Yet we will do 
 him the justice to say that he has honestly “ endeavoied ” to paint 
 correctly the Spanish Conquest, as well as the noble heroism of the men 
 who accomplished it. And, considering his deep religious prejudices, he 
 has succeeded much better in this than could have been anticipated. 
 
 Perhaps, in composing his history, he had also an eye to business, and 
 cast a shrewd glance at the religious atmosphere breathed by those for 
 whom it was written. Perhaps, too, he may have been under the impres¬ 
 sion that he could not hope to reach the Elysium of popular favor, without 
 first casting some crusts to the many-headed Cerberus of religious prejudice ! 
 Many a modern writer thinks himself compelled to pay this unworthy 
 tribute in passing — shall we be allowed the comparison, made with all 
 due respect to old Charon and to printers’ devils ? — the Styx of the press. 
 When will this unworthy trembling before the slightest breath of the aura 
 popularis cease ? When will authors of respectability be free from a 
 thraldom as galling as it is degrading ? Will the Moloch of reli(»-ious 
 bigotry continue to prove more insatiable than was even the war-god of the 
 Aztecs, fed on human victims ? 
 
 But, as we have already intimated, in spite of the religious prejudice 
 which so strongly swayed the bosom of Mr. Prescott, the greatness and 
 magnificence of his theme inspired him and carried him away. Cold and 
 puritanical as his soul may have been, it could not resist the torrent of 
 ■enthusiasm which bore away the Conquerors on its bosom, any more than 
 ■ could the warlike Aztecs I'esist their strong arms, their good swords, and 
 • their iron will. Hence he kindles with his subject, enters heartily into its 
 stirring scenes and startling adventures, shares in the sufferings and 
 triumphs of the Conquerors, and, bating some gross insults to the religion 
 which they prized more dearly than life, appreciates their lofty motives, 
 and does them ample justice. 
 
 The annals of mankind, though they unfold many scenes which show 
 “ how thin is the partition that divides romance from reality,” yet tell of 
 
 1 St. John vi, 63 
 
 2 The Democratic Review. Feb’ry, 1844. Article on “ Prescott’s Conquest of Mexico.” 
 
 3 The incident here alluded to is well known. Diogenes, soiling with his muddy feet the carpet* 
 of Plato, observed with a sneer: “ Calco fastum Platonis.^' Plato calmly replied; “At tnajon 
 4XStU ! ” 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 259 
 
 few such feats as the Conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards. As our 
 historian well remarks : “ The whole story has the air of fable rather than 
 of history ; a legend of romance — a tale of the genii.” ‘ He thus happily 
 groups together the principal startling incidents of which it is made up, 
 when viewed merely as a military achievement:— 
 
 “ That a handful of adventurers, indifferently armed and equipped, 
 should have landed on the shores of a powerful empire, inhabited by a 
 tierce and warlike race, and, in defiance of the reiterated prohibitions of 
 its sovereign, have forced their way into the interior ; — that they should 
 have done this, without knowledge of the language and the land, without 
 chart or compass to guide them, without any idea of the difficulties they 
 were to encounter, totally uncertain whether the next step might bring 
 them on a hostile nation or on a desert, feeling their way along in the dark, 
 as it were ; — that, though nearly overwhelmed by their first encounter 
 with the inhabitants, they should still have pressed on to the capital of the 
 empire, and, having reached it, thrown themselves unhesitatingly into the 
 midst of their enemies ; — that, so far from being daunted by the extra¬ 
 ordinary spectacle there exliibited of power and civilization, they should 
 have been but the more confirmed in their original design ; — that they 
 should have seized the monarch, have executed his ministers before the 
 eyes of his subjects, and, when driven forth with ruin from the gates, have 
 gathered their scattered wreck together, and, after a system of operations, 
 pursued with consummate policy and daring, have succeeded in overturning 
 the capital, and establishing their sway over the country ; that all this 
 should have been effected by a mere handful of indigent adventurers, is a 
 fact little short of the miraculous,— too startling for the probabilities 
 demanded by fiction, and without a parallel in the pages of history.” ^ 
 
 The number of Spaniards, who marched the first time against Mexico, 
 fell short of four hundred.^ Accompanying the expedition there were 
 about six thousand Tlascalans, and a few Cempoallans; and the whole force 
 did not exceed seven thousand men, who were to fight against and to con¬ 
 quer the countless myriads of Montezuma. The Spaniards were compelled 
 to fight their way to the capital inch by inch; and they had first to subdue, 
 before they could avail themselves of the services of, the intervening warlike 
 tribes. Among these, the most formidable were the ^erce mountaineers — 
 
 the Swiss of Anahuac,” as Mr. Prescott styles them, or rather the 
 Spartans,— the brave and independent Tlascalans ; first the most deadly 
 enemies, and then the most steadfast friends of the Conquerors. 
 
 With this mere handful of ill-assorted troops, the Spaniards had to 
 encounter, in his own capital, the dread Montezuma, a name terrible 
 throuorhout Anahuac — a name which could summon in an instant millions 
 
 O 
 
 of fierce warriors, prepared to do battle to the death under his banner ! 
 They had to plant their standard in the very heart of Tenochtitlan,— “ the 
 Venice of the Aztecs ; ” they had to uphold it there, against the myriads 
 who, lashed into a wild fury by the battle cry of their great war-god, 
 rushed to the onslaught, and made almost superhuman efforts to pull it 
 down. Cut off from all communication with tlie main land, by the 
 surrounding lakes and the opened sluices of the dykes,— hemmed in by 
 
 1 Vol. iii. p. 215. 2 Ibid., pp. 221, 222. 
 
 # 
 
 3 Vol. ii, p. 69 
 
260 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 the hosts who were fiercely shouting for their blood, and clamoring for 
 new'human victims for their terrible Moloch,-—exhausted with fatigue, 
 reeking with wounds, and almost expiring with hunger; — they yet 
 maintained with desperate bravery the unequal contest. 
 
 Driven from the capital amid the unutterable horrors of the Noclie 
 Triste, they gathered together the miserable wreck of their former army; 
 and, after fighting their way back to the coast, contending at every step 
 with hunger, with thirst, with snares laid for their destruction, with 
 hostile armies sent out to cut off their retreat, doomed to destruction, 
 though “ fated not to die ; ” they again, in nothing dismayed by their 
 past sufferings, fought their way back to the capital, unmindful of danger, 
 and regardless of the awful death on the fatal stone of sacrifice ; — a doom 
 which stared them in the face, and which had already fallen to the lot of 
 many among their comrades. 
 
 Montezuma was no more ; but a greater than Montezuma now sat on 
 the imperial throne of the Aztecs. Young, active, persevering, fertile in 
 resources, and determined rather to die with his people than to submit to 
 the Spanish yoke, Guatamozin — the last of the Aztecs — was prepared 
 to defend his capital to the last extremity ; and his people, to a man, 
 shared in the determination of their youthful sovereign. The superstitious 
 awe which had seized them on the first appearance of the Spaniards, had 
 now yielded to a deadly hatred of men, whose past reverses had proved 
 them equally mortal with themselves. Now came the deadly strife, the 
 fiei *ce tug of war. 
 
 The result is known, and the story is soon told. After feats of daring 
 and bravery which only Spanish chivalry could achieve,— after a siege, 
 perhaps the most memorable in the annals of history,— after a series of 
 desperate assaults, and equally desperate defenses, almost without a 
 parallel,— the iron purpose of the Spaniards won the day, and the banner 
 of Castile floated in ti-iumph from the loftiest pinnacle of the great temple 
 of Tenochtitlan. But it floated over a city laid in ruins, and reeking with 
 the blood of the slaip. The Aztecs would have it so : they had fiercely 
 resisted every offer of capitulation; they had determined to bury them¬ 
 selves under the ruins gf their capital! Thus fell the proud “Venice of 
 the Aztecs.” But two years had elapsed since the Spaniards began their 
 first march to Mexico, and already they had subdued an immense empire. 
 
 However the hearts of the Conquerors may have *bled over the ruined 
 palaces and fallen turrets of the capital; however they may have sympa¬ 
 thized with the appalling sufferings of its people, yet the iron fate of war 
 left them no alternative. The Conquest, through the desperate resistance 
 of the Aztecs, could have been effected with no less disastrous results. 
 The city, however, rose speedily from its ruins ; the Spaniards soon made 
 it more beautiful and magnificent than ever, and they substituted the 
 Christian church for the odious and blood-stained Teocalli; the cross for 
 the gory statue of the war-god ; and the pure and unbloody sacrifice of 
 Christianity for the horrible human sacrifices of the Aztec superstition. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 2(31 
 
 Thus, by almost supernatural exertions and sacrifices, was a vast barbaric 
 empire subdued, and reclaimed to Christian civilization. 
 
 The actors in the stirring scenes of this great drama were men of iron 
 nerve and chivalrous daring. They all achieved feats of almost superhuman 
 strength, and won imperishable laurels in this contest. From the common 
 soldier, old Bernal Diaz,— who, to hear his own account, was one of the 
 prime movers in every leading enterprise,— up to the great Captain himself, 
 all distinguished themselves by a perseverance and a patient endurance 
 of toil and suffering, which would have done honor to the Spartans of 
 Leonidas, or to the legions of Caesar. 
 
 Among the leaders, there was Gonzalo de Sandoval, the brilliant, the 
 bold, the daring, the successful, the darling of the army and of his 
 general, the soul of chivalry,— the Tancred of the expedition. There was 
 the equally brave, though less amiable and scrupulous Alvarado, the 
 future conqueror of Guatemala, the Tonatiuh, or “ child of the sun,” of 
 the Aztecs,— the Bohemond of the Conquest. But peering far above 
 them all, a pyramid of strength, stands forth the colossal character of 
 Hernando Cortes,— the Godfrey de Bouillon of the Conquest. He was 
 the very man for the emergency. He was the body as well as the soul 
 of the enterprise: it was his work, in its inception, in its progress, in its 
 termination. His genius originated it, created the means by which it 
 might be accomplished, not only overcame, but turned to account, the 
 seemingly insuperable obstacles which interposed, watched over it in 
 every trying stage of its progress, and finally brought it to a glorious 
 consummation. Few men, whether in ancient or modern times, ever 
 contended with more difficulties, endured more hardships, were more 
 fertile in expedients, or triumphed with means so slender and inadequate. 
 
 Once he had landed in Mexico, and conceived the idea of conquering 
 the empii-e, he burnt his fleet; thus cutting off all hope of retreat, and 
 leaving his men no alternative but to conqueror to die. He then buckled 
 on his good sword, and with his little army followed fearlessly the banner 
 of the Cross, which he had resolved to plant on the loftiest pinnacle of the 
 city of Montezuma. On, on, with the battle cry of “ God and St. lago! ’’ 
 No dangers appal, no difficulties discourage him. Labor, and toil, and 
 hardships, and reverses, are his daily bread: his soul rises with obstacles, 
 as the ship rises with the waves. A child of fortune, he seems to rise 
 superior to fortune; or rather, his genius transmutes misfortunes into 
 brilliant success. 
 
 When, after incredible toil and hazard, he has the golden prize already 
 in his grasp, and reposes quietl}’' in the capital of Montezuma, he learns 
 that Narvaez liad been sent with a formidable force to supersede him in 
 the command. Not a moment is lost. He marclies with electric rapidity 
 to meet his rival, surprises him in his camp, defeats his fresh and regular 
 troops with one-fourth of their number, and, almost witliout a struggle, 
 takes them prisoners, wins their affections, incorporates them witli his own 
 army, and thereby doubles his own effective force. He finds that he 
 
262 pkescott’s conquest op Mexico. 
 
 cannot hope to take the capital, without a fleet to command the surrounding 
 lakes; and his genius creates a fleet, and has it transported across the 
 mountains on the shoulders of his men. 
 
 Olid, a subordinate chieftain rebels : Cortes leaves all his Mexican 
 laurels behind him, and to chastise him, marches three thousand miles 
 through the unexplored wilderness of Chiapa,— through wood and marsh, 
 over lake and river ; making every obstacle bend to his iron will, checking 
 the'rising disaffection of his troops, reviving their drooping spirits, himself 
 leading the way in every toil and hardship : nor does he give over the 
 seemingly hopeless enterprise, but boldly pushes on, till he has attained 
 his object. Perhaps, in all the annals of mankind, there is not to be found 
 a parallel to this dreadful ’ march to Honduras. It cost the great 
 Conqueror nearly as much time, and perhaps more hardship and danger, 
 than‘the Conquest of the Mexican empire itself. 
 
 ' In one word, Cortes was ready to undertake anything and everything ; 
 and he seldom failed to accomplish whatever he undertook. He had the 
 intuition of genius ; his mind took in at a glance all the incidents and 
 bearings of an enterprise, no matter how difficult or complicated it might 
 appear.' 
 
 We know of no exact parallel to his character, but he possessed traits in 
 common with many great generals of antiquity. He moved and conquered 
 with the electric rapidity of Pyrrhus, but he was more successful : ho. 
 Subdued a more warlike empire than Alexander, but he did not, like him, 
 subsequently waste his energies in debauch : he had the courage, skill,- 
 and indomitable energy of Scipio Africanus, and, like him, he destroyed a 
 great capital; -— but, unlike Scipio, he caused this capital to rise again 
 from its ashes more splendid than ever. He conquered with Csesar, and 
 with him, “he wrote his own commentaries,” ^ almost amidst the stirring 
 scenes of the battle-field itself. He had the iron nerve and the fertile 
 invention of Hannibal, and the same unconquerable energy in encountering 
 difficulties ; but he was much more fortunate than Hannibal. And it is 
 remarkable that old Bernal Diaz compares him to the two generals last 
 named : 
 
 “ He preferred to be called ‘ Cortes’ by us, to being called by any title; 
 and with good reason, for the name of Cortes is as famous in our day, as 
 was that of Ceesar among the Romans, or of Hannibal among the 
 Carthao;enians.” ^ 
 
 We regret that our limits will not allow of copious extracts from 'the 
 History of the Conquest, setting forth the character of Cortes, to which 
 Mr. Prescott does as ample justice as his religious prejudices would 
 possibly permit. We can make room for but one or two : 
 
 “ Indeed, the history of the Conquest, as I have already had occasion 
 
 1 01(1 Beriial Liaz ni.akes the following naive !uul pious reflection on the exploits of the Con¬ 
 querors; ••and, a.sl ponder on exphdM. I feel that it was not of ourselves that we performed 
 them, but that it was the prfxidenee of God which guided us. Much food is there here for 
 meditation !” —a;?. Prtsc. ii. 178. 
 
 2 Cf. Prescott, lii, 3o2. 
 
 3 Apud eundeni, hi, 3oG. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 263 
 
 to remark, is necessarily that of Cortes, who is, if I may so say, not 
 merely the soul, but the body of the enterprise,— present everywhere in 
 person, in the thick of the fight, or in the building of the works, with Ids 
 sword or with his musket, sometimes leading his soldiers, and sometimes 
 directing his little navy. The negotiations, intrigues, correspondence, are 
 all conducted by him; and, like Ccesar, he wrote his own commentaries 
 in the heat of the stirring scenes which form the subject of them.”' 
 
 “ He was a knight errant in the literal sense of the word. Of all the 
 band of adventurous cavaliers, whom Spain, in the sixteenth century, sent 
 forth on the career of discovery and conquest, there was none more deeply 
 filled with the spirit of romantic enterprise than Hernando Cortes. 
 Dangers and difficulties, instead of deterring, seemed to have a charm in 
 his eyes. They were necessary to rouse him to a full consciousness of his 
 powers. He grappled with them, at the outset, and, if I may so express 
 myself, seemed to prefer to take his enterprises by the most difficult side ! 
 He conceived, at the first moment of his landing in [doubtful) the 
 
 design of its conquest. When he saw the strength of its civilization, he 
 was not turned from his purpose. When he was assailed by the superior 
 force of Narvaez, he still persisted in it; and, wlien he was driven in ruin 
 from the capital, he still chei-ished his original idea. How successfully 
 be carried it into execution, we have seen. After the few years of repose 
 which succeeded the Conquest, his adventurous spirit impelled him to 
 that dreary march across the marshes of Chiapa ; and, after another 
 interval, to seek his fortunes on the stormy Californian gulf. When he 
 found that no other continent remained for him to conquer, he made 
 serious proposals to the emperor to equip a fleet at his own expense, with 
 which he would sail to the Moluccas, and subdue the spice islands for the 
 crown of Castile! ” ^ 
 
 A convincing proof of the great interest which attaches to the personal 
 history of Cortes, and an evidence, too, of the skill of Mr. Prescott as a 
 historian, is found in the fact, that his work loses none of its attractiveness, 
 after the description of the final siege and fall of Mexico. The brilliant 
 De Solis had closed his History of the Conquest with this last scene of the 
 great drama; but Mr. Prescott, at the liazard of not sustaining his 
 narrative, continues it after this event, and unfolds the various startling 
 vicissitudes in the subsequent career of Cortes. And never was a biog¬ 
 raphy more interesting, both in itself and in the manner in which it is 
 treated. Few readers who have gone as far as the fall of Mexico, will 
 refuse to accompany the author to the close of his volume ; and many 
 even will read with pleasure the valuable papers in tlie Appendix. 
 
 We cannot close this notice without attempting briefly to answer two 
 questions, which have been often asked respecting the Conquest of Mexico : 
 
 * 1. Was the Conquest justifiable ? 
 
 2. Was it stained with unnecessary and wanton cruelty by the Spanish 
 Conquerors ? 
 
 1. The principles by which we judge, in the abstract, of the right of 
 conquest, are very abstruse and difficult to be ascertained with certainty. 
 They lie back in the very foundations of society, and constitute the most 
 delicate and difficult portions of international jurisprudence. Conquerors^ 
 
 2 Ibid. 353, 354. 
 
 1 Ibid. 352. 
 
264 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 seldom reason; they act. They come up to Shell’s definition of an 
 Irishman : “ they act first, and think afterwards.” Might and right are 
 not synonymous terms; but they have been too often viewed as such 
 in the annals of conquest. We recollect once to have read on the barrel 
 of a cannon the significant inscription: ultima ratio regum, — the last 
 reason of kings. This saying is perhaps still more true of conquerors 
 than of kings. 
 
 The right of conquest involves a number of very complicated questions; 
 and the slightest circumstance may change a whole case. Hence, perhaps, 
 the best method of deciding the question, whether the Spanish Conquest 
 was justifiable, will be to present a succinct statement of the facts bearing 
 on the case, with such reflections interspersed, as the facts may themselves 
 suggest or warrant. We will adopt this method, and will state nothing, 
 which is not undoubted, and for which we will not have the authority of 
 Mr. Prescott himself; though we shall be compelled to controvert some of 
 his positions. And, unless we are greatly mistaken, it will clearly appear 
 from the train of our remarks, that, if ever a conquest was justifiable, that 
 of Mexico by the Spaniards was so. 
 
 Before the expedition of Cortes, the enterprise of the Spaniards had 
 already discovered the continent bordering on the gulf of Mexico, and it 
 had been visited by two other adventurers, Cordova and Grijalva : 
 
 “Under this chivalrous spirit of enterprise, the progress of discovery 
 had extended, by the beginning of Charles the Fifth’s reign, from the bay 
 of Honduras, along the winding shores of Darien, and the South American 
 continent, to the Rio de la Plata. The miglity barrier of the isthmus had 
 been climbed, and the Pacific descried by Niifiez de Balboa; second only to 
 Columbus in this valiant band of ‘ ocean chivalry.’ ”* 
 
 Grijalva had not returned ; but Cordova had, by his glowing accounts, 
 quickened the zeal, and stimulated the enterprise of Velasquez, the gov¬ 
 ernor of Cuba. The latter accordingly fitted out an expedition, at the head 
 of which he placed Hernando Cortes. The objects of this entei'prise were: 
 to find Grijalva; to rescue six Christians whom Cordova had reported as 
 lingering in captivity in Yucatan ; and lastly and chiefly, to extend the 
 Spanish commerce with the natives. In the instructions given to Cories, 
 no allusion is made to a conquest of the country, properly so called : 
 
 “But the great object of the expedition was barter with the natives. In 
 pursuing this, special care was to be taken that they should receive no 
 wrong, but be treated with kindness and humanity, Cortes was to bear 
 in mind, above all things, that the object which the Spanish monarch had 
 most at heart was the conversion of the Indians. He was to impress on 
 them the gi-andeur and goodness of his roval master, to invite them ‘ to i>'ive 
 in their allegiance to him, and to manifest it by regaling him with such 
 •comfortable presents of gold, pearls and precious stones, as, by showing 
 their own good will, would secure his favor and protection.’ He Avas to 
 make an accurate survey of the coast, sounding its bays and inlets for the 
 benefit of future navigators. He was to acquaint himself with the natural 
 products of the country,”^ Ac, 
 
 1 Vol. i, p. ‘217. 
 
 2 ILid. 248—9. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 265 
 
 The author adds, that tlie general tenor of the instructions given to 
 Cortes “ must be admitted to provide for the interests of science and 
 humanity, as well as for those wliich had "oference only to a commercial 
 speculation.”* 
 
 Armed with these humane and pacific instructions, Cortes landed in 
 Mexico: nor did he violate either the spirit or the letter of them, until 
 compelled to do so by the indomitable hostility of the Indians. They, and 
 not he, struck the first blow; and his appeal to arms was a necessary 
 measure of self-defense. The first battle occurred at Tobasco; and Mr. 
 Prescott speaks of the conduct of Cortes as follows: 
 
 “Before commencinof hostilities, that ‘he mii^ht act with entire regfard 
 to justice, and in obedience to the instructions of the royal council,^ he first 
 caused proclamation to be made through the interpreter, that he desired 
 only a free passage for Ins men ; and that he proposed to revive the friendly 
 relations which had formerly subsisted between his countrymen and the 
 natives. He assured them that if blood were spilt, the sin would lie on 
 their heads and tliat resistance would be useless, since he was resolved at 
 all hazards to take up his quarters that night in the town of Tobasco.”^ 
 
 This proclamation was received by the Indians, “ with shouts of defiance 
 and a shower of arrows.”^ This was a usual mode of procedure with 
 Cortes, who was, in no instance, the aggressor; —at least on his first march 
 to Mexico, and until he had been hopelessly committed in the war of the 
 Conquest. Thus, ere he encountered the fierce Tlascalans, 
 
 “ Cortes, when he had come within hearing, ordered the interpreter to 
 proclaim that he had no hostile intentions, but wished to be allowed a 
 passage through their country, which he had entered as a friend. This 
 declaration he commanded the royal notary, Godey, to record on the spot, 
 that if blood were shed it might not be charged on the Spaniards.”^ 
 
 At Cempoalla, the capital of the Totonacs, he liad already heard of the 
 tyranny of Montezuma, and of the horrid human sacrifices practiced by 
 the Aztecs. The Cempoallan cazique had told him, that Montezuma was 
 “a stern prince, merciless in his exactions, and, in case of resistance, or 
 any offense, sure to wreak his vengeance by carrying off their young men 
 and maidens to be sacrificed to his deities. Cortes assured him, that he 
 would never consent to such enormities; he had been sent by his sovereign 
 to redress abuses and to punish the oppressor ; and if the Totanacs would 
 be true to him, he would enable them to throw oft’ the detested yoke of the 
 Aztecs.”^ He had already assured the cazique “that he had come to the 
 Aztec shores to abolish the inhuman worship which prevailed there, and 
 to introduce the knowledge of the true God.”® 
 
 The more nearly the Spaniards approached the capital, the more were 
 their souls harrowed by the spectacles which everywhere met their eyes, 
 revealing both the execrable tyranny of Montezuma, and the awful extent 
 to which was carried the practice of human sacrifices among the Aztecs. 
 In one place — called Cocotlan by Bernal Diaz — “there were thirteen 
 teo callis (temples); . . . and in the suburbs they had seen a receptacle, 
 
 1 Vol i.p ‘24S-9. 2 Ibid p 278 3 Ibid. 
 
 4 Ibid, p 426. 6 Ibid, p 346. 6 Ibid. p. 445. 
 
 2B 
 
266 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 in which, according to Bernal Diaz, were stored a hundred thousand skulls 
 of human victims, all piled and ranged in order ! He reports the number 
 as ascertained by counting them himself.”* The author adds : “ The 
 Spaniards were destined to become familiar with this appalling spectacle 
 as they approached nearer to the Aztec capital.”^ 
 
 These human sacrifices, of which many among the Spaniards themselves 
 were destined subsequently to become the victims,^ had been long carried 
 to a frightful extent in Anahuac. It was an essential part of the Aztec 
 religion, and was yearly on the increase. On this subject Mr. Prescott 
 says: 
 
 “ The amount of victims immolated on its accursed altars would 
 stagger the faith of the least scrupulous believer. Scarcely any author 
 pretends to estimate the yearly sacrifice throughout the empire at less 
 than twenty thousand, and some carry the number as high as fifty. 
 On great occasions, as the coronation of a king, or the consecration of 
 a temple, the number becomes still more appalling. At the dedication 
 of the great temple of Huitzilopotchli, in 1486, tlie prisoners, who for 
 some years had been reserved for tlie purpose, were drawn from all 
 quarters of the capital. They were ranged in files, forming a procession 
 nearly two miles long. The ceremony consumed several days, and 
 seventy thousand captives are said to have perished at the shrine of this 
 terrible deity 
 
 “ One fact may be considered certain. It was customary to preserve 
 the skulls of the sacrificed, in buildings appropriated to the purpose. 
 The companions of Cortes counted one hundred and thirty-six thousand 
 in one of these edifices. . . . Indeed the great object of war with the 
 Aztecs was quite as much to gather victims for their sacrifices, as to 
 extend their empire. Hence it was that an enemy was never slain in 
 battle, if there were a chance to take him alive. To this circumstance 
 the Spaniards repeatedly owed their own preservation. When Mon¬ 
 tezuma was asked, ‘ why he had sufifered the republic of Tlascala to 
 maintain her independence on his borders,’ he replied, ‘ that she might 
 furnish him with victims for his gods.’ 
 
 Such then was the tyranny, and sucli were the horrible abominations 
 prevalent among the Aztecs ! Could the Spaniards, could Cortes look on 
 those scenes unmoved ? Could he, as a Spanish chevalier of lofty bearing, 
 leave all those wrongs unredressed ? Could he resist the cry of the fet¬ 
 tered slave who implored his aid in breaking his bonds, and asserting his 
 freedom from an odious tyranny wliich was crushing him in the dust ? 
 Could he, as a knight of the cross, suffer the temples any longer to be 
 besmeared with human gore, or the smoke of the horrid sacrifice any longer 
 to ascend from wreaking human victims ? Could he, when he had the 
 power to prevent it, permit the most sacred laws of society and of humanity 
 to be thus openly and frightfully trampled on, under his very eyes? Could 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 899. 2 Ibid. pp. 399—400 
 
 3 See Prescott, volume iii, pp. 152—3, for a graphic de.scrlption of tlie dreadful sacrifice of the 
 Spaniards on the-summit of the great teocalli of Mexico. 4. Introduction, pp 79, 80 
 
 5 Ibid. pp.81 — 2. i'or a lively picture of the manner iu which the revoking sacrifice was per¬ 
 formed. see ibid. p. 75, et. seq. For the appalling spectade which met the e\es of die Conquerors 
 when they first visited the Aztec temples of Mexico, see Vol ii. p 152 Old fii-rnal Diaz testifies that 
 those “hells” smelled more strongly than the worst charnel hou.-es of Castile. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 267 
 
 he, ill one word, as a true knight, sworn to redress grievances, to protect 
 the weak, and to assert the riglit, do otherwise than he actually did ? 
 
 He liad come to Mexico with pacific intentions ; he had not been the 
 aggressor; he was drawn, into the war against his own will; by circum¬ 
 stances beyond his control, he was subsequently hurried into it more and 
 more deeply : at every step of his progress, he saw new grievances to 
 redress, new abominations to suppress; the oppressed nations of Anahuac 
 loudly called on him for protection against an inhuman despot, who was 
 grinding them down with exactions, and snatching awa3% for the horrid 
 sacrifice, their sons and their daufjhters : in the midst of all these stirring^ 
 scenes, the hearts of both himself and his companions in arms, beat high 
 with the chivalrous feelings which had lingered longer in Spain than in 
 any other country : — could he, we repeat it, under all these circumstances, 
 have acted otherwise than he did ? 
 
 Was he, in the first moment of danger, through an over-nice point of 
 honor, or a too delicate sense of the Aztec rights, to turn his back on men, 
 who themselves respected the rights of neither God nor man; — insulting 
 the former with human sacrifices, and trampling systematically on the 
 the dearest rights of the latter ? Had he thus ingloriously fled, he would 
 not have been a true Castilian chevalier, nor a faithful knight of the cross. 
 But Providence had entrusted to him a higher mission, and well and truly 
 did he fulfill it. Wherever his arms were victorious, the fetters of the 
 crouching slave were stricken off, and the trembling captive, reserved for 
 the sacrifice, escaped from his horrid cage.’ Whithersoever he went, he 
 was the protector of the weak, and the scourge of the oppressor. Nor did 
 he desist, until the throne of the haughty Aztec was laid low ; until 
 his temples were purified from the abominations of human victims, and 
 dedicated to the true God in a purer worship. 
 
 According to the principles of natural reason, and the authority of Mon¬ 
 tesquieu, Grotius, Putfendorf, and most writers on international law, human 
 sacrifices alone, genei-ally practised among a people, would justify their 
 subjugation by another, in case they would not consent, on being properly 
 appealed to, to abolish of themseh^es the abominable custom. If war may 
 be lawfully declared for the flagrant violations of the rights of property, 
 is it not, a fortiori, lawful, when it is waged to protect from the most 
 barbarous death hundreds of thousands of human beings ? If b}" the 
 universally received principles of international law, war may be declared to 
 abolish the slave trade, can it not, a fortiori, be declared for the object just 
 referred to? Mr. Prescott, in fiict, does not dissent from these views, 
 however he may seek to conceal or to qualify his opinion. Take this 
 passage as an evidence; he is speaking of the Aztec sacrifices: 
 
 “Men became familiar with scenes of horror and the most loathsome 
 abominations. Women and children — the whole nation became familiar 
 with, and assisted at them. The heart was hardened, the manners were 
 made ferocious, the feeble light of civilization, transmitted from a milder 
 
 1 Cf. I'rescott, vol. ii, p 38. • 
 
268 Prescott's conquest of Mexico. 
 
 ( 
 
 race, was growing fainter and fainter, as thousands and thousands of mis¬ 
 erable victims, throughout the empire were yearly fattened in its cages, 
 sacrificed on its altars, dressed and served ai its banquets ! The whole 
 land was converted into a vast human shambles 1 The empire of the 
 Aztecs did not fall before its time !”* 
 
 Then follows this singular passage: 
 
 “ Whether these unparalleled outrages furnish a sufficient plea to the 
 Spaniards for their invasion, whether with the Protestant, we are content 
 to find a reward for it in the natural rights and demands of civilization, or, 
 with the Roman Catholic, in the good pleasure of the Pope(!)—on the 
 one or the other of which grounds, the conquests by most Christian 
 nations in the east and west have been defended—it is unnecessary to 
 discuss, as it has already been considered in a former chapter.”^ 
 
 One would have thought, had not Mr. Prescott intimated the contrary, 
 that Protestants had not monopolized all the common sense of the world; 
 and that Roman Catholics could claim an equal right with them to defend 
 their conquests by an appeal “to the natural rights and demands of civili¬ 
 zation.” We boldly deny the truth of the assertion, that any Catholic 
 power ever rested the defense of its conquests, “in the good pleasure of 
 the Pope and the authorities to which Mr. Prescott refers for proof of 
 this, “in a former chapter,”,do not establish it, any more than along note 
 appended to the present one, establishes the immaculateness of the Puritans 
 who colonized New England. 
 
 This will clearly appear from a very brief examination of Mr. Prescott’s 
 curious opinion, on the theory of the right of conquest as maintained by 
 Catholics. After having asserted, without any sufficient evidence, that 
 the holy See claimed a right to all pagan lands, he adds: 
 
 “ Thus Alexander VI. generously granted a large portion of the western 
 hemisphere to the Spaniards, and of the eastern to the Portuguese. These 
 lofty pretensions of the successoi-s of the humble fishermen of Galilee, far 
 from being nominal, were acknowledged and appealed to as conclusive in 
 controversies between nations.”^ 
 
 This last fact solves the whole problem. The Catholic powers of Europe, 
 fearing to. come into collision in the rapid progress of their discoveries, 
 appealed, by mutual consent, to the common father of the fiiithful, as a 
 freely chosen arbitrator, to mark out the limits of their prospective terri¬ 
 tories. The Popes, feeling that their powerful mediation might prevent 
 war and bloodshed, as freely acceded to the proposal. The result proved 
 their wisdom and forecast. The treaty of Tordesillas between the Spanish 
 and Portuguese governments, proceeding on the basis of this papal par¬ 
 tition, settled, without a drop of blood, a controversy which otherwise 
 might have involved both governments in a dreadful war.'* 
 
 That this is the true view of the whole matter, appears more clearly 
 from Mr. Prescott’s own admission—singularly inconsistent with his 
 previous random assertions. He says : * 
 
 “ It should be remarked that, whatever difference of opinion existed 
 
 1 Vol iii. p. 117. 
 i Cf I’reicott, ibid. note. 
 
 1 Ibid. 
 
 3 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 31. 
 5 Ibid p 32, note. 
 
character of the conquerors. 
 
 269 
 
 between the Roman Catholic — or rather the Spanish and Portuguese 
 nations — and the rest of Europe, in relation to the true foundation of* 
 their titles in a moral view, they have always bden content in their contro¬ 
 versies with one another, to rest them exclusively on priority of discovery.’^ 
 
 And in proof of this, he quotes Vattel and Chancellor Kent. Thus it 
 is manifest, from our author’s own showing, that his assertion concerning 
 the Catholic nations resting their titles “ in the good pleasure of the 
 Pope,” is all a fallacy, —a mere insipid crust thrown to the Cerberus of 
 bigotry. 
 
 We have a word to bestow, by the way, on our old friends, the good 
 Puritans of New England, whom Mr. Prescott draws into the discussion 
 on the right of conquest. He admits “that King James’ patent asserted 
 rights as absolute nearly as those claimed by the Roman See.”' But the 
 Puritans of New England did not rest their claims on this patent — not 
 they ! Nor did they rest them on the general arguments alleged by other 
 Protestants, ^drawn from the design of God that the soil of the earth should 
 be extensively cultivated, or from the wants of an ever-expanding civili¬ 
 zation. They were far too enlightened to maintain their titles under any 
 such flimsy pretexts ! “ On the contrary,” our author tells us, “ they 
 
 established their title to the soil by fair purchase of the aborigines ; thus 
 forming an honorable contrast to the policy pursued by too many of the 
 settlers on the American continent.”^ 
 
 All that this fine picture needs is fidelity of outline, and truth of 
 coloring. In bargaining, the aborigines of North America were no match 
 for the shrewd Puritans; especially, as was often the case, after the heads 
 of the former had been excited “by copious draughts of rum !” They 
 often sold their territory for a mere trifle : sometimes, as in the case of the 
 Pequods of Connecticut, their soil was seized on by reckless violence. 
 The good Puritans were too often wont to treat them as Amalecites, who 
 were to be driven without mercy from their new Chanaan. 
 
 If there be any truth in history, it is certain that the Puritans were in 
 the habit of first cheating, then of goading into war, next of driving into 
 the wilderness or selling into bondage, and lastly,' if other means failed, 
 of exterminating the poor Indian tribes of New England ! The preachers 
 often accompanied these expeditions of extermination, marching at the 
 head of the troops, and with the “godly Stone,” pouring forth long prayers 
 for the success of their arms.l 
 
 Did Mr. Prescott forget that the Puritans exterminated or drove into 
 the wilderness all the once flourishing tribes of New England — the 
 Pokanokets, the Naragansetts, the Pequods ? Did he forgot the treach¬ 
 erous manner in which they requited the generous hospitality of old 
 Massasoit — who had first sheltered them in his wigwam—by selling the 
 only heir of his house into bondage under the burning sand of Bermudas ? 
 Did he forget the long continued and cold blooded and systematic cruelty, 
 
 1 Cf. Prescott, p. 32, note. 2 Ibid. 
 
 3 Cf. Bancroft passim. In our He view of Webster’s Bunker Hill speech, {infra,) the subject 
 will be discussed at length. 
 
 2B2 
 
270 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 with which they successively swept from the face of the earth most of the 
 original occupants of the^ soil ? Did he forget that they did little or 
 nothing for their religious culture ? Could he, a New Englander, have 
 wholly forgotten all these things, to say nothing of the blue laws and the 
 burning of witches ? If he did not, why hold up his forefathers as such 
 paragons of perfection, and models for imitation ? The fairness of the 
 Puritans, forsooth ! 
 
 2. This naturally leads us to the second question : Did the Spaniards 
 stain their Conquest of Mexico with wanton and unnecessary cruelty ? 
 
 Mr. Prescott’s own authority warrants us to answer emphatically in tlie 
 negative. Our limits will not allow us to dwell at any great length on 
 this question: nor is it necessary to do so. The subject will probably 
 recur in our next article on Mr. Prescott’s work, in which we mean to 
 speak of the religious point of view of the Conquest; and besides, the 
 case is a very plain one, and, though complicated in its details, is yet 
 easily made out. Never was there, perhaps, in the whole history of 
 mankind, a conquest which was effected with less bloodshed. Never was 
 there one which was conducted with more moderation and discretion, even 
 in the heat of the most stirring scenes. Never was there one stained with 
 fewer crimes, or in which more effectual means were adopted to check 
 violence and to stay cruelty. 
 
 / All this can be easily established by incontestable evidence. We have 
 already seen, how humane was the spirit breathed by the instructions 
 furnished to Cortes by Velasquez. Mr. Prescott is our witness that Cortes 
 faithfully kept those instructions, at least until he had reacdied Cholula, 
 on his way to the Aztec capital: 
 
 “ The present expedition, up to the period of its history at which we 
 are now arrived, had been probably stained with fewer of such acts (of 
 violence,) than almost any similar enterprise of the Spanish discoverers 
 in the new world. Throughout the campaign, Cortes had prohibited all 
 wanton injuries to the natives, and had punished the perpetrators of them 
 with exemplary severity. He had been faithful to his friends, and with 
 perhaps a single exception, not unmerciful to his foes.”* 
 
 What this single exception is, we are at a loss to guess, unless th 
 historian refers to his having had the hands of the Tlascalan spies cut off, 
 and his having sent them to their countrymen in this mutilated condition. 
 But this severity, shocking as it may appear to our present delicacy, was 
 really an act of mercy to the fierce Tlascalans, whose souls were thus 
 stricken with a terror that induced them to close the war, and thereby to 
 stop the effusion of blood : it was such even to the spies themselves, whom 
 the international law of all nations would have consigned, and would even 
 now consign, to the gallows. Was Washington inhumane, because he 
 persisted in having Major Andrfe hung, though this brave man urgently 
 entreated, as a last request, that he might be permitted to die the death 
 of a soldier ? 
 
 1, Vol. ii, p. 23. 
 
CHARACTER OP TI£E CONQUERORS. 
 
 271 
 
 We do not mean to say that all the deeds of the Conquerors are 
 defensible, or that they never perpetrated acts of cruelty unwarranted by 
 the trying circumstances in which they were placed. But we do assert, 
 that when all the circumstances are duly and impartially weighed, there 
 was less of wanton cruelty than in any similar expedition for conquest 
 recorded in history. The actions of men struggling to win an empire, 
 and placed in daily and hourly peril of their lives, with treachery often 
 lurking in their own camp, and snares encompassing them from without, 
 are not surely to be judged by the rules of every day life. Rightly 
 to appreciate them, we must divest ourselves of the present, transport 
 ourselves back to their own times, and intermingle with them in all the 
 stirring scenes of their great drama. Judging the Conquerors by this 
 equitable standard, we will find that they were guilty of fewer acts of 
 violence than many refined nations of even this enlightened age, placed 
 under similar circumstances. The bloody deeds of the Conquerors almost 
 disappear, when put in comparison with the cruelties perpetrated by the 
 enlightened English at the storming of Badajoz,’ and in other passages of 
 the Peninsular war; to say nothing of the other multiplied horrors of 
 the wars which lately desolated Europe. 
 
 The wanton cruelties, perpetrated by some of the Spanish commandei-s, 
 were severely rebuked by Cortes. Thus the cold-blooded massacre of the 
 Mexicans, ordered by Alvarado, in the absence of Cortes from the capital, 
 was strongly censured by him on his return, however much Alvarado 
 sought to justify it by motives of alarm and of expediency. Speaking of 
 this incident, Mr. Prescott says : 
 
 “When Alvarado had concluded his answejrs to the several interroga¬ 
 tories of Cortes, the brow of the latter darkened as he said to his 
 lieutenant: ‘ You have done badly. You have been false to your trust. 
 Your conduct has been that of a madman.’ And, turning abruptly on 
 his heel, he left him in undisguised displeasure.”^ 
 
 There is scarcely a deed of cruelty ascribed to the Spaniards, which 
 had not its justifying, or at least its palliating circumstances. Thus the 
 massacre at Cholula, ordered by Cortes, was viewed by him as a necessary 
 measure of self-defense, under circumstances of imminent peril to the 
 very existence of the Spaniards. They had entered the city as friends ; 
 they had been received as friends ; they had conducted themselves as 
 friends. While every external appearance indicated friendship on the 
 part of the Cholulans, and promised security to their guests, a foul con¬ 
 spiracy was detected, which aimed at nothing less than the extermination 
 of the whole Spanish army ! Thus betrayed by men wearing the mask 
 of friendship, Cortes determined to strike the first blow, as the only 
 means his genius could suggest to avert the threatened destruction. And 
 though, reposing in the security of our closet, we may be inclined to 
 think that he exceeded the just measure of legitimate defense, yet the 
 result justified his forecast.^ 
 
 1 Mr. Prescott admits this, vol ii, p. 34. 2 Vol. ii, p. 289. 3 Cf. Ibid. pp. 33—35. 
 
272 
 
 PRESCOTT^S CONQUEST OF MEXICO. 
 
 A notlier matter of crimination against Cortes is the seizure of Montezuma 
 in his own capital, wliile the emperor was regaling him and his army 
 with princely hospitality. But fairness requires us to remember, that the 
 truth and honesty of the Aztec emperor were strongly suspected ; and 
 that his previous conduct had rendered these suspicions doubly strong. 
 The Spaniards too were in a most critical situation, in the midst of hostile 
 myriads, who awaited only the beck of Montezuma to pounce on and 
 destroy them; or lead them to the fatal stone of sacrifice. In this emer¬ 
 gency, their only security lay in possessing themselves of the person of 
 Montezuma, and in using his influence to subdue the city, without shed¬ 
 ding a drop of blood. It was a bold step, worthy the genius and daring 
 of Cortes; and, as a matter of expediency, and even, in a certain sense, 
 of humanity, it was a master-siroke of policy. Mr. Prescott himself, 
 though he follows the most unfavorable accounts of the transaction, yet 
 pronounces this equitable opinion: 
 
 ** To view the matter differently, we must take the position of the Con¬ 
 querors, and assume with them the original right of conquest. Regarded 
 from this point of view, many difficulties vanish. If conquest was a 
 duty, every thing necessary to effect it was right also. Right and 
 expedient became convertible terms. And it can hardly be denied that 
 the capture of the monarch was expedient, if the Spaniards would maintain 
 their hold on the empire.”^ 
 
 It is scarcely pretended, that after his seizure, Montezuma was treated 
 with wanton inhumanity by the Spaniards. Their treatment of the brave 
 and patriotic Guatamozin, after the fall of Mexico, is not so easily 
 defended. But if he was submitted to the torture, it is but justice to 
 Cortes to say, that he opposed it with all his might, and only -yielded to 
 the clamor of his soldiers supported by the royal treasurer, Alderete.’ 
 The soldiers were flushed with victory, and goaded into madness by disap¬ 
 pointment in not finding the expected booty, which, it was alleged, 
 Guatamozin had concealed, they openly threatened insurrection : and it is 
 difficult to say how far the influence even of Cortes could have checked 
 or stayed their violence. Indeed, when we reflect with how motley and 
 reckless a soldiery he had to deal, we are lost in amazement at the success 
 of his efforts to enforce subordination, and to prevent deeds of wanton 
 cruelty. 
 
 If Guatamozin was subsequently executed by Cortes, we shou.d bear 
 in mind, that the deed was done amidst the awful scenes of that dreadful 
 march to Honduras : and we could pardon almost every thing to a man 
 exhausted by so many hardships, and beset with so many dangers. Any 
 one who will read attentively Mr. Prescott’s account of the whole trans¬ 
 action, must come to the conclusion, that Cortes viewed it as a necessary 
 measure of security to the lives of himself and followers. His Indian 
 auxiliaries vastly outnumbered his own troops : amid those dreary marshes 
 of Chiapa, the Spaniards were wholly in the power of their Aztec allies; 
 
 1 Mr. Prescott admits as much, Tol. ii, p. 159. 2 Vol ii, p. 176. 3 Cf. Prescott, iii, 236, et seq. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 
 
 273 
 
 these threatened to pounce upon them in their exhausted condition, and 
 to rear again the fallen banner of Guatamozin. A conspiracy for this 
 purpose was organized, of which the fallen emperor was believed to be 
 the ringleader. Under these trying circumstances, Cortes thought that 
 he had no alternative.‘ 
 
 Finally, if much blood was shed, and many horrors enacted during the 
 6nal siege and capture of Mexico, it was not so much the fault of the 
 Spaniards, as of the circumstances of the siege itself. The Spaniards 
 would fain have taken the capital without shedding a drop of blood; but 
 the obstinate spirit of the Aztecs resisted all their repeated overtures for 
 a capitulation. We cannot better vindicate the conduct of the Conquerors 
 in this emergency, than in the language of Mr. Prescott: 
 
 Their swords were rarely stained with blood, unless it was indis¬ 
 pensable to the success of their enterprise. Even in the last siege of the 
 capital, the sufferings of the Aztecs, terrible as they were, do not imply 
 any unusual cruelty in the victors : they were not greater than those 
 inflicted on their own countrymen at home, in many a memorable instance, 
 by the most polished nations, not merely of ancient times, but of our own. 
 They were the inevitable consequences which follow from war, when, 
 instead of beincr confined to its own leuitimate field, it is brouQfht home 
 to the hearth-stone, to the peaceful community of the city,— its burghers 
 untrained to arms, its women and children yet more defenseless. In the 
 present instance, indeed, the sufferings of the besieged were in a great 
 degree to be charged on themselves,—on their patriotic but desperate 
 self-devotion. It was not the desire, as it was certainly not the interest, 
 of the Spaniards to destroy the capital or its inhabitants. When any of 
 these fell into their hands, they were kindly entertained, their wants 
 supplied, and every means taken to infuse into them a spirit of conciliation; 
 and this, .too, it should be remembered, in spite of the dreadful doom to 
 which they consigned their Christian captives. The gates of a fair 
 capitulation were kept open, though unavailingly, to the last hou)-. The 
 right of conquest necessarily implies that of using whatever force may be 
 necessary for overcoming resistance to the assertion of that right. For 
 the Spaniards to have done otherwise than they did, would have been to 
 abandon the siege, and with it the conquest of the country. To have 
 suffered the inhabitants, with their high-spirited monarch, to escape, 
 would but have prolonged the miseries of war, by transferring it to 
 another and more inaccessible quarter. They literally, as far as the 
 success of the expedition was concerned, had no choice. If our indig¬ 
 nation is struck with the amount of suffering in this, and in similar scenes 
 of the Conquest, it should be borne in mind, that it is a natural result of 
 the o’reat masses of men enffaffed in the conflict.” ^ 
 
 In conclusion, we would beg the impartial reader to compare for a 
 moment the Spanish Conquest of Mexico with the English Conquest of 
 India ; and the Spanish Hernando Cortes with the English Lord Clive. 
 How immaculate do even the,darkest deeds of the Spanish Conquerors 
 appear, when placed by the side of those done by the English of the 
 eighteenth century in India ? For drops of blood shed by the Spaniards,, 
 the English shed gallons ; for tens on whom the Spaniards inflicted suf- 
 
 1 Cf. Ibid, p. 2S5, et seq. 
 
 21 
 
 2 Vol. iii, pp 218, 219. 
 
274 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 fering, the English inflicted it on thousands. The horrors of the Spanish 
 Conquest were transient; and they were speedily forgotten in the blessings 
 of the new civilization of which the Conquerors were the harbingers: 
 the horrors of the English Conquest still remain, increased a hundred 
 fold ; the tens of millions of enslaved and crushed victims, yet send forth 
 their notes of wailing under English tyranny. The dreadful horrors 
 recently enacted in Afghanistan and Schinde are but links in the chain 
 of a systematic cruelty and oppression which has continued, with little 
 interaiission, since the first moment of the Conquest,— or for the last 
 ninety years ! Lastly, the Spaniards abolished the horrid human sacrifices 
 of the Aztecs, and indoctrinated them in Christianity ; the English bowed 
 down the bodies, but cared little for the souls of their vicl.ims ; and the 
 horrid car of Juggernaut still crushes its hundreds of fanatical worshipers ! 
 
 And then, how does the character of Lord Clive compare, or rather 
 contrast with that of Hernando Cortes ! Bold, daring, gifted, and suc¬ 
 cessful like Cortes, Clive had not a particle of his chivalry, nor of his 
 moral principle. As a warrior, too, he was vastly inferior. He had not 
 the same difficulties to contend with, nor the same fierce and warlike 
 tribes to encounter. Though assisted with fire-arms, the soft and effemi¬ 
 nate Bengalee was not to be put in comparison with the fierce Aztec, and 
 the warlike Tlascalan. Finally, Cortes was an honorable and high-minded 
 cavalier, whose lofty nature could not stoop to meanness; Clive was an 
 intriguer, a hypocrite, a forger! * The two names of Lord Clive and 
 Hernando Cortes should not be breathed together, nor written on the 
 same page, any more than those of Warren Hastings and the very worst 
 of the Spanish viceroys that ever ruled in the Mexican capital. 
 
 1 We would ask those, who may be disposed to think these epithets unwarrantable or too strong, 
 to read Macaulay’s review of Malcolm’s Life of Clive,” We can present only the following brief 
 extract: “Accordingly this man, in all the other parts of his life an honorable English gentleman 
 and soldier, was no sooner matched against an Indian intriguer than he became himself an Indian 
 intriguer, and descended without scruple to falsehood, to hypocritical caresses, to the substitution of 
 documents, and to counterfeiting of hands! ” Macaulay’s Miscellanies, 8vo. p. 327. Carey & Hart, 
 Philadelphia, 1848. Read the entire Review, as also the article on Warren Hastings, ibid, p. 400, et wj. 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
 Xiy. PRESCOTT’S CONQUEST OF MEXICO. 
 
 ARTICLE ir. 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW OF THE CONQUEST.* 
 
 Religious point of view necessary —Noble sentiment of Lope de Vega — Spaniards much influenced 
 by it— Prescott’s testimony —The Spanish cavalier, a soldier of the Cross — Injustice done his 
 character by Prescott — The age of chivalry compared with the present — Motives which actuated 
 Cathoiic and Protestant navigators and pioneers— A. holy Crusade—Religious character of 
 Cortes — His standard — Stirring address to his soldiers — The Cross unfurled —And animating the 
 army —Zeal for the conversion of the natives— Religious rites and worship — Relative adaptation 
 of Catholic and Protestant systems for making proselytes— Prescott’s theory examined ~ Remark¬ 
 able incidents showing the piety of the Conquerors — Their zeal sometimes too fiery — Catholic 
 missionaries — They oppose cruelty to the natives — As well as all forced conversions — Las Casas 
 and Olmedo — Alleged intemperate zeal of Cortes — Idols cast down — Explanation and defense— 
 Charitable zeal of Olmedo —Aquilar and other missionaries —Religious ceremonies on launching 
 the fleet — And at the termination of the siege—Missionaries after the Conquest — Destruction 
 of the Teocallis — Great number of converts among the Aztecs — How accounted for— Prescott’s 
 . theory—“ The Aztec worship and Romish ritual!”—Alleged similarity between the two — 
 Curious coincidences — Alleged miracles — Loss and gain to the Church — Conclusion. 
 
 In our first article, we endeavored to show what was the character of 
 the Conquest and of the Conquerors of Mexico; and we examined how 
 far Mr. Prescott has done justice to the subject. In the present paper, 
 which will conclude our remarks on Mr. Prescott’s work, we intend 
 briefly to unfold the Religious Point of View of the Conquest, and to 
 vindicate from the assaults of prejudice or ignorance the eminently 
 religious character of the Conquerors. 
 
 Without examining the religious aspect of the Conquest, it were utterly 
 impossible rightly to understand or properly to appreciate its character. 
 Religion was, in fact, its great end and aim ; its all-pervading motive; 
 its very life and soul. Religion nerved the arms, stimulated the courage, 
 and ennobled the chivalry of the Conquerors. Religion accompanied the 
 Conquest in every eventful stage of its progi’ess, softened down its 
 manifold horrors, bound up and healed with a heavenly balm its many 
 bleeding wounds ; and soothed and raised up, by her sweet ministrations 
 of mercy, the bruised hearts and crushed spirits of the vanquished. All 
 this we hope to make appear, from unquestionable evidence. 
 
 One among the greatest of the Spanish poets, Lope de Vega, has in a 
 
 ^ Hist on/ of the Conquest of Mexico, with a Preliminaiy View of the Ancient Mexican 
 Civilization, and the Life of the Conqueror, Hernando Cortes. By William H. Prescott, 
 author of the History of Ferdinand and Isabella. In 3 vols. 8 vo., pp. 488, 480, 524 
 Harper & Brothers; New York, 1843. 275 
 
276 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 single brief couplet unfolded the whole purpose of Hernando Cortes, and 
 the great object of the Conquest which he achieved : — 
 
 “ A1 rey infinitas tierras, 
 
 Y a Dios iufiniras aluias.”* 
 
 To extend the boundaries of the Spanish empire over the vast territories 
 of the new world, and thereby to gain an infinite number of souls to God, 
 was the twofold object of this and of every other Spanish Conquest. Mr. 
 Prescott himself assures us, that this “ is the light in which the Conquest 
 Vas viewed by every devout Spaniard of the sixteenth century.”^ With 
 the great French Catholic Champlain of North America, the “devout 
 Spaniard” of that day deemed “the salvation of a soul more glorious 
 than the conquest of an empire.”’ This heavenly motive of winning souls 
 to God was much stronger in the mind and heart of the Spanisli Catholic, 
 than the earthly motive of mere worldly conquest. The former often 
 prompted to the latter. The desire of planting the cross in the midst of 
 heathen nations, and of thereby bringing them from “the region of the 
 shadow of death,” into the bright land of Christian civilization, generally 
 preceded, it always accompanied the expedition for discover^ and conquest. 
 Upon this subject let us hear Mr. Prescott, whose testimony has additional 
 weight, from the circumstance that it is extracted from that portion of his 
 history in which he unfolds the strange theory of Catholic Conquest, to 
 which we adverted in our first article: 
 
 “With the right of conquest, thus conferred, came, also, the obligation, 
 on which it may be said to have been founded, to retrieve the nations 
 sitting in darkness from eternal perdition. This obligation was acknowl¬ 
 edged by the best and the bravest, the gownsman in his closet, the 
 missionary, and the warrior in the crusade. However much it may have 
 been debased by temporal motives and mixed up with worldly considera¬ 
 tions of ambition and avarice, it was still active in the mind of the 
 Christian conqueror. We have seen how far paramount it was to every 
 calculation of personal interest in the breast of Cortes.”^ 
 
 We have no doubt that our historian sought to do justice to the lofty 
 religious chivalry of the Conquerors ; and if he has not succeeded to the 
 full, we are to ascribe the failure mainly to a deep and abiding prejudice — 
 of which, perhaps, he himself was not wholly conscious—against the 
 religion which they professed. There is, however, this extenuating 
 circumstance in the bigotry of Mr. Prescott, that the evil generally carries 
 with it its own remedy. Wherever this dark stain of prejudice is seen, 
 sullying the whiteness and marring the beauty of his pages, there, by the 
 side of it, you perceive also, the correctives of inconsistency, absurdity, 
 and self-contradiction. It would really appear, that the enlightened and 
 polished Mr. Prescott claims the right of being absurd and of contradicting 
 himself, whenever he sets foot within the hallowed inclosure of the sanc¬ 
 tuary. We have already given some instances of this amiable foible: 
 and to show that we are not hazarding assertions, or bandying epithets at 
 
 1 “To the King boundless territory, and to God innumerable souls.” 
 
 2 Vol. iii, p. 362 — note. 3 See Bancroft, History U. States, vol, iii, chap, xx 
 
 4 Vol ii, p. 31-2. 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT 01 VIEV7. 
 
 277 
 
 random, we will now proceed to point out some others, in connection with 
 what we may call Mr. Prescott’s religious theory of the Conquest. 
 
 To soften dawn the charge of bigotry brought against Cortes, and to 
 aid in estimating aright the true spirit of the Conquest, he offers the 
 following remarks: 
 
 “ But this is unjust. We should throw ourselves back (it cannot be too 
 often repeated) into the age; the age of the Crusades. For every Spanish 
 cavalier, however sordid and selfish might be his private motives, felt 
 himself to be the soldier of the cross. Many of them would have died in 
 defense of it. Whoever has read the correspondence of Cortes, or, still 
 more, has attended to the circumstances of his career, will hardly doubt 
 that he would have been among the first to lay down his life for the faith. 
 He more than once periled life, and fortune, and the success of his whole 
 enterprise, by the premature and most impolitic manner in which he 
 would have forced conversion on the natives.”‘ 
 
 To these reasonable remarks he adds the following characteristic reflec¬ 
 tions : 
 
 “To the more rational (!) spirit of the present day, enlightened by a 
 purer (!) Christianity, it may seem difficult to reconcile gross deviations 
 from morals with such devotion to the cause of relisfion. But the relicfion 
 taught in that day was one of form and elaborate ceremony. In the 
 punctilious attention to discipline, the spirit of Christianity was permitted 
 to evaporate. The mind, occupied with forms, thinks little of substance.”^ 
 
 To us it appears wholly incomprehensible, how a religion of “ mere 
 form and elaborate ceremony,” from which “ the spirit of Christianity 
 was permitted to evaporate,” could have stimulated Cortes “to lay down 
 his life for the faith!” Will Mr. Prescott say, that there was no “sub¬ 
 stance” in this “devotion to the cause of religion?” Is he of the opinion, 
 that those of the pi-esent day, “enlightened by a purer Christianity,” 
 would be prepared to lay down their lives for its defense ? Did his 
 Puritan ancestors, basking in the rays of this “ purer Christianity,” covet, 
 to any great extent, the crown of martyrdom ? 
 
 In another place, our historian thus attempts to paint the character of 
 the Spanish soldier of the cross : 
 
 “ The Spanish cavalier felt he had a higher mission to accomplish, as a 
 soldier of the cross. However unauthorized or unrighteous the war into 
 which he had entered may seem to us, to him it was a holy war. He was 
 in arms ao-ainst the infidel. Not to care for the soul of his benio-hted 
 enemy was jto put his own in jeopardy. The conversion of a single 
 soul miu'ht cover a multitude of sins. It was not for morals that he 
 was concerned, but for the faith. This, though understood in its most 
 literal and limited sense, comprehended the whole scheme of Christian 
 morality.”^ 
 
 It were difficult to reconcile toofether the assertions contained in the two 
 last sentences; and to understand clearly how the Spanisli cavalier “was 
 not concerned for morals,” while the faith, which glowed so-warmly in his 
 bosom, “comprehended the whole system of Christian morality!” If 
 the accomplished author meant to assert — as seems probable — that the 
 1 Vol. iii, p. 361. 2 Ibid., p 362. 3 Vol. i. pp. 269, 270. 
 
 2G 
 
 % 
 
278 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 Spanish knight was not at all imbued with a knowledge of morality, and 
 was taught by his Church to believe that faith alone could save him 
 without works, then we enter our solemn protest against the assertion, 
 which is little better than an injurious calumny. 
 
 As soldiers of the cross, the Spanish Conquerors were deeply imbued 
 with that lofty and ardent spirit of chivalry, which had ever been a 
 prominent trait in their national character. This spirit had grown up 
 amidst the perils and adventures of that long protracted struggle of eight 
 hundred years with the Moorish conquerors of Spain; whom, after many 
 a deadly contest, the noble Spanish chivalry succeeded in finally driving 
 from their beautiful country. It was a struggle for their homes, for their 
 altars, for their liberties, for their very existence, against those who had 
 fastened a foreign yoke of iron, together with a foreign fanaticism, on their 
 necks. It was a struggle of the Cross against the Crescent; of Christian 
 light and civilization against Mohammedan darkness and despotism. The 
 Cross triumphed ; and with its triumph were intimately blended all the 
 most glowing reminiscences, and all the most glorious aspirations *of 
 Spanish patriotism. This historical view furnishes us with a key to the 
 Spanish character, and explains to us its lofty bearing and its noble 
 chivalry. 
 
 ^ When, after the Conquest of Granada, the Moors were finally driven 
 from Spain, Spanish chivalry panted for new fields of action on which it 
 mif^ht win additional laurels ; and the discovery of a new world, at this 
 precise period, opened to its enterprise a new theater for adventure. Of 
 the spirit with which the Spanish cavalier entered on this new career* 
 Mr. Prescott speaks as follows ; 
 
 “ The period which we are reviewing was still the age of chivalry; 
 that stirring and adventurous age, of which we can form little conception 
 in the present day of sober, practical reality. The Spaniard, with his nice 
 point of honor, high romance, and proud, vain-glorious vaunt, was the 
 true representation of that age. The Europeans, generally, had not yet 
 learned to accommodate themselves to a life of literary toil, or to the 
 drudgery of trade, or the patient tillage of the soil. They left these to the 
 hooded inmate of the cloister, the humble burgher, and the miserable 
 serf. Arms was the only profession worthy of gentle blood,— the only 
 career which the high-mettled cavalier could tread witli honor. The new 
 world, with its strange and mysterious perils, afforded a noble theater for 
 the exercise of his calling, and the Spaniard entered on it with all the 
 enthusiasm of a palladia of romance.” ‘ 
 
 It is curious to mark the different spirit with which the various nations 
 of Europe embarked on the new career of discovery and conquest, opened 
 to them by the enterprising genius of Columbus and other Catholic navi* 
 gators. Mr. Prescott makes the comparison in the foliowingv remarkable 
 passage, which immediately follows that just given : • 
 
 “ Oiher nations entered on it also, but with different motives. The 
 Frencli sent forth their missionai-ies to take up their dwelling among the 
 heathen, who, in the good work of winning souls to Paradise, were content 
 
 1 Vol. iii, p 64. I 
 
 
9 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 279 
 
 to wear — nay, sometimes seemed to court — the crown of martyrdom. 
 
 The Dutch, too, had their mission, but it was one of worldly lucre, and 
 they found a recompense for toil and suffering in their gainful traffic witli 
 the natives. While our own Puritan fathers, with tlie true Anglo-Saxon 
 spirit, left their pleasant homes across the waters, and pitched their tents 
 in the howling wilderness, that they might enjoy the sweets of civil and 
 religious freedom. But the Spaniard came over to the new world in the 
 true spirit of a knight-errant, courting adventure, however perilous, wooing 
 danger, as it would seem, for its own sake. With sword and lance, he 
 was ever ready to do battle for the faith; and, as he raised his old war-cry 
 * of ‘ St, Jago,’ he fancied himself fighting under the banner of the military 
 apostle, and felt his single arm a match for more than a hundred infidels ! 
 
 It was the expiring age of chivalry ; and Spain, romantic Spain, was the 
 land where its liofht linofered lono-est above the horizon.” ‘ 
 
 o o o 
 
 The noble spirit, exalted motives, and devoted Christian zeal of the 
 Catholic French and Spaniards, compare very advantageously, or rather 
 contrast very strongly, with the sordid avarice and the mere carnal 
 motives of the Protestant Dutch and Puritans, even if the latter did pant 
 for “the sweets of civil and religious freedom;”—a fact more than 
 questionable, when we consider their narrow-minded bigotry, their selfish 
 and exclusive policy, and their bitter persecution of brother Protestants. 
 
 Who would not greatly prefer to theirs, the noble type of the Spanish 
 character, as exhibited in the elevated religious zeal, the heroic daring, • 
 
 and the generous self-devotedness of the soldier of the cross, in the new 
 world ? Who so dead to the feelings of chivalry, as not to be moved by 
 the sight of a brave and devoted little band of cavaliers leaving home, 
 
 •and nobly battling for Christianity in a foreign land ? 
 
 Feared by their breed, and famous by their birth ; 
 
 Renowned for their deeds, as far from home 
 
 For Christian service, and true chivalry.” ^ 
 
 Mr. Prescott tells us more than once, that the Conquest of Mexico was 
 viewed by the Spaniards as a kind of holy crusade, for the extension of 
 Christianity; and, though we think that he sometimes pushes this view 
 of the subject too far, yet, in the main, it is correct. We cheerfully 
 subscribe to the following declaration : 
 
 “ There can be no doubt, that Cortes, with every other man in his 
 army, felt he was engaged in a holy crusade ; and that, independently 
 of personal considerations, he could not serve heaven better, than by 
 plaining the cross on the blood-stained towers of the heathen metropolis.”* 
 
 The whole history of the Conquest proves this eminently religious 
 character of Cortes and his associates, and estahlishes the fact that religious 
 zeal was the distinctive feature and the all-pervading motive of the whole 
 enterprise. Making proper allowance for his strong prejudice against the 
 religion of the Conquerors, Mr. Prescott himself does justice to this 
 branch of the subject: and in vindicating tlie motives and conduct of the 
 Conquerors, we shall accordingly have little more to do than to allege his 
 authoi’ity. The givat number of facts we shall have to produce, as links 
 
 1 Voi. iii. pp G4-5. 2 Shakspeare. Richard II. 3 Vol iii,p. 75. 
 
280 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 in the chain of evidence, will allow us little room for commeni ; nor will 
 much comment be necessary. We mean to show, that, throughout the 
 eventful vicissitudes of the Conquest, the winning of souls to God was 
 the all-absorbing consideration with the Spaniards, in comparison with 
 which all others were undervalued; and that religion presided over the 
 entire expedition, mitigating its evils, checking its excesses, and soothing 
 its horrors. 
 
 Before Cortes and his army had set foot on the soil of Mexico, this 
 noble purpose of converting the natives to Christianity, was strongly 
 impressed on his mind, as the chief object of the expedition. In the 
 instructions given him by Velasquez, the Governor of Cuba, he was told, 
 as we have seen, “to bear in mind, above all things, that the object which 
 the Spanish monarch had most at heart, was the conversion of the Indians; 
 and to take the most careful care^ to omit nothing that might redound to 
 the service of God or his sovereign.” ‘ 
 
 Cortes determined to comply with the letter, while he entered fully into 
 the spirit of these instructions. His banner was constructed in imitation 
 of the famous labarum, which Constantine, the first Christian emperor, 
 had made after the model of the cross he had seen in the heavens; and 
 it was inscribed with a similar motto : 
 
 “His principal standard, was of black velvet, embroidered with gold, 
 and emblazoned witli a red cross amidst flames of blue and white, with 
 this motto in Latin beneath : ‘ Friends, let us follow the cross; and under 
 this sign, if we have faith, we shall conquer.’” ^ 
 
 Ere he embarked on the expedition, Cortes addressed his heroic little 
 band of intrepid adventurers in a strain well worthy the soldier of the 
 cross: 
 
 “ You are few in number, but strong in resolution; and, if this does 
 not falter, doubt not but that the Almighty, who has never deserted the 
 Spaniard in his contest with the infidel, will shield you, though encom¬ 
 passed by a cloud of enemies ; for your cause is a just cause, and you are 
 to fight under the banner of the cross. Go forward, then, with alacrity 
 and confidence, and carry to a glorious issue the work so auspiciousl 3 r’^ 
 bei'un.” ^ 
 
 This address was responded to with enthusiastic emotion by every man 
 in that little army; while the blessing of God was solemnly invoked on the 
 expedition ere it set sail: 
 
 “ Cortes was well satisfied to find his own enthusiasm so largely shared 
 by his followers. Mass was then celebrated with the solemnities usual 
 with the Spanish navigators, when entering on their voyages of discovery. 
 The fleet was placed under the immediate protection of St. Peter, the 
 patron saint of Cortes : and weighing anclior, took its departure on the 
 ■eighteenth day of February, 1519, for the coast of Yucatan.” 
 
 Cortes knew of no argument better calculated to stimulate the courao^e 
 and to awaken the ardor of his followers, than an appeal to their religious 
 feelings. On the eve of his march to Mexico from Cempoalla, 
 
 “ The General spoke a few words of encouragement to his own men, 
 
 1 Ibid, Tol. i, pp 248-9. 2 Ibid. p. 258. 3 Ibid. pp. 263-4. 4 Ibid. p. 264. 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 281 
 
 H« told them they were now to embark, in earnest, on an enterprise which 
 had been the great object of their desires; and that tlie blessed Saviour 
 would carry them victorious through every battle with their enemies. 
 
 Indeed,’ he added, ‘ this assurance must be our stay, for every other 
 refuge is now cut off, but that afforded by the Providence of God, and 
 your own stout hearts.’ 
 
 Did the courage of his soldiers seem likely to falter, when they beheld 
 themselves beset with difficulties and dangers in the heart of a country 
 teeming with enemies ? Did they hesitate, when, for instance, they were 
 about to encounter the dreadful embattled array of the fierce and warlike 
 TIascalans ? — 
 
 “Cortes put himself at the head of his cavalry, and calling out, 
 * Forward, soldiers, the Holy Cross is our banner, and under that we 
 shall conquer,’ led his little army through the undefended passage ; and 
 in a few moments tliey trod the soil of the free republic of Tlascala.”^ 
 
 Ill the desperate battles which ensued on the soil of this fiery-hearted 
 republic crowning the mountains of Anahuac, the banner of the cross, 
 and the words of Cortes eloquently enforcing the motto inscribed 
 thereon, led the Spanish army through apparently insuperable difficulties, 
 and caused it to achieve prodigies of valor. In one of those sharp 
 contests with the TIascalans, when the chances for the Spaniards seemed 
 desperate, as they beheld themselves overwhelmed by superior numbers: 
 
 “Amidst the din of battle, the voice of Cortes was heard, cheering on 
 his soldiers. ‘If we fail now,’ he cried, ‘the cross of Christ can never 
 be planted in the land. Forward, comrades ! When was it ever known 
 that a Castilian turned his back on a foe ? ’ Animated by the words and 
 heroic bearing of their General, the soldiers, with desperate efforts, at 
 length succeeded in forcing a passage through the dark columns of the 
 enemy, and emerged from the defile on the plain beyond.’’^ 
 
 When, worn down with fatigue, and despairing of ever reaching 
 Mexico, his soldiers entreated Cortes to retrace his steps, and to lead tliem 
 back to the coast; “He made answer, ‘ we fight under the banner of the 
 cross ; God is stronger than nature; ’ and continued his march.When 
 his arms were crowned with success, he attributed the victory and all the 
 glory to God’s watchful Providence: “As we fought under the standard 
 of the cross for the true faith, and the service of your highness,’’ writes 
 he in a despatch to Charles V., “ Heaven crowned our arms with such 
 success, that, while multitudes of the infidels were slain, little loss was 
 suffered by the Castilians.’’^ 
 
 Throughout the whole expedition, amidst all its stirring scenes and 
 hair-breadth escapes, Cortes and his followers never forgot that they were 
 knights of the cross, and that the chief object of the enterprise was the 
 conversion of the natives. At Cozumel and at Tabasco; at Cempoalla 
 and on the heights of Tlascala; in the holy city of Cholula and in the 
 oapiuil of Montezuma; in conferences with country caziques, with Aztec 
 nobles, with Montezuma himself: amidst the overpowering fatigues of his 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 392-3. 2 Ibid. p. 405. 3 Ibid, p 430. 
 
 4 Ibid p 456. 6 Ibid. 
 
 2C2 
 
282 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 march, when exhausted and worn down with hunger, watchfulness and 
 incessant fighting ; — at all times, and in all places, the object first in his 
 thoughts, and first in his affections, the darling projeet of his soul, upon 
 which he insisted, in season and out of season,’^ was the conversion of 
 the natives to Christianity ! This we could prove by a whole volume of 
 evidence, drawn from the work of Mr. Prescott. 
 
 The first point at whieli Cortes came in contact with the natives was the 
 island of Cozumel; and our historian bears the following testimony as to 
 his relifirious zeal on the oeeasion : 
 
 O i 
 
 “ The first object of Cortes was to reclaim the natives from their gross 
 idolatry, and to substitute a purer form of worship. . . There was nothing 
 which the Spanish government had more earnestly at heart, than the 
 conversion of the Indians. It forms the constant burden of their instruc¬ 
 tions, and gave to the military expeditions in this hemisphere the air of 
 a crusade. The cavalier who embarked in them entered fully into these 
 chivalrous and devotional feelings.”* 
 
 A similar zeal for the conversion of the natives was manifested at 
 Tabasco : 
 
 “ Before his departure the Spanish commander did not omit to provide 
 for the great object of his expedition, the conversion of the natives. . . . 
 He then caused the reverend fathers Olmedo and Diaz to enlighten their 
 minds, as far as possible, on the great truths of revelation, urging them to 
 receive these in place of their heathenish abominations. The Tabascans, 
 whose perceptions were no doubt materially quickened by the discipline 
 they had undergone, made but a faint resistance to either proposal. The 
 next day was Palm Sunday, and the General resolved to celebrate their 
 conversion by one of those pompous ceremonials of the Church, which 
 should make a lasting impression on their minds. A solemn procession 
 was formed of the whole army with the ecclesiastics at their head, each 
 soldier bearing a palm-branch in his hand. The concourse was swelled 
 by thousands of Indians of both sexes, who followed in curious astonish¬ 
 ment at the spectacle. The long files bent their way through the 
 flowering savannas that bordered the settlement, to the principal temple, 
 where an altar was raised, and the image of the presiding deity was 
 deposed, to make room for that of the Virgin with the infant Saviour. 
 Mass was celebrated by father Olmedo, and the soldiers who were capable 
 joined in the solemn chant. The natives listened in profound silence, 
 and, if we may believe the chronicler of the event (Goinara) who wit¬ 
 nessed it, were melted into tears ; while their hearts were penetrated with 
 reverential awe for the God of those terrible beinijfs who seemed to wield 
 in their own hands the thunder and the lightning.”^ 
 
 To account for the rapidity with which the natives were converted to 
 Catholic Christianity, Mr. Prescott here speculates as follows on the 
 relative adaptation of the Catholic and Protestant systems for making 
 proselytes : 
 
 “The Roman Catholic communion has, it must be admitted, some 
 decided advantages over the Protestant, for the purposes of proselytism. 
 The dazzling pomp of its service, and its touching appeal to the sensi¬ 
 bilities, affect the imagination of the rude child of nature much more 
 
 1 Vol. i, p, 2G9. 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. 290-1. 
 
TUE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 283 
 
 powerfully than tlie cold abstractions of Protestantism, which, addressed 
 to the reason, demand a degree of refinement and mental culture in the 
 audience to comprehend them.”’ 
 
 In another place, speaking of the conversion of the Totonacs at Cem- 
 poalla, he farther unfolds his theory on the subject, as follows : 
 
 “ Mass was performed by father Olmedo, and the impressive character 
 of the ceremony and the passionate eloquence of the good priest, touched 
 the feelings of the motley audience, until Indians as wtdl as Spaniards, if 
 we may trust the chronicler, were melted into tears and audible sobs. 
 The Protestant missionary seeks to enlighten the understanding of his 
 convert by the pale liglit of reason. But the bolder Catholic, kindling 
 the spirit by the splendor of the spectacle, sweeps along his hearers in a 
 tempest of passion, that drowns every thing like reflection (!) He has 
 secured his convert by the hold on his affections, — an easier and more 
 powerful hold with the untutored savage, than reason.”^ 
 
 Honorable as is this testimony to the Catholic Church, coming from a 
 prejudiced Protestant, yet we had, in our simplicity, entertained the belief 
 that Protestantism, with “ its cold abstractions,” and “pale light of rea¬ 
 son,” had not monopolized all the intellect of the w'orld ; and that Catholic 
 missionaries were also blessed with a small portion of reason wherewith 
 “ to enlighten the understanding of their converts.” We may have been 
 wrong ; but unless we are greatly mistaken, Mr. Prescott himself shows, 
 in many passages of his work — some of which we will hereafter furnish — 
 that the Catholic missionaries, who accompanied the army of the Conquest, 
 labored patiently to enlighten the understanding, no less than to move the 
 hearts of their proselytes. 
 
 We will barely remark here, that our historian’s theory, however much 
 founded in truth it may appear to be in the main, does not adequately 
 explain the notorious and undeniable fact, that every nation which has 
 ever been converted to Christianity from paganism, and thereby reclaimed 
 to civilization, has been converted by Catholic missionaries; and that, on 
 the contrary, no nation has ever been thus converted by missionaries 
 attached to the Protestant sects ! For this remarkable result there must 
 be some explanation, other than the mere diversity of means employed 
 by the missionaries of the respective communions. There are such things 
 as the special blessing of God on missionary toil, and a legitimate mission 
 to undertake the work of conversion. Without these, all human philosophy 
 were unavailing; for, “how can they preach unless they be sent?”^ 
 And there can be no doubt, that the almost total failure of Protestant 
 missionary effort is ascribable at least as much to the want of these 
 essential conditions, as to the employment of any inadequate or injudicious 
 means for the conversion of heathens. 
 
 We might produce many other instances of the zeal which was every¬ 
 where manifested by the Conquerors for the conversion of the natives. 
 But we must be satisfied with one more extract, merely referring our 
 readers in the margin to many others''which we had marked tor quotation, 
 
 1 Vol. i, pp. *290-1. Ibid. p. 361. 3 r.oumn.s, ch. x. 
 
 4 Cf. vol. i, pp 33o, 334, 396, 357, and vol ii. pp. 55. 83- 87, 88. 150, 155, &c. 
 
284 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 but which our narrow lindits compel us to exclude. The author is speaking 
 of the conference held by Cortes with the Aztec envoys of Montezuma in 
 the Spanish encampment near Vera Cruz, previous to the commencement 
 of the march to Mexico. The passage proves both the piety of the 
 Conquerors and their zeal for converting the natives : 
 
 “ While they were conversing, the bell struck for Vesj)ers(?).' At the 
 sound, the soldiers, throwing tliemselves on their knees, offered up their 
 orisons before the large wooden cross planted in the sands. As the 
 Aztec cliiefs gazed with curious surprise, Cortes thought it a favorable 
 occasion to impress them with what he conceived to be a principal object 
 of his visit to the country. Father Olmedo accordingly expounded, as 
 briefly and clearly as he could, the great doctrines of Christianity, 
 touching on the atonement, the passion, and the resurrection, and con- 
 cludinii' with assuring his astonished audience, that it was their intention 
 to extirpate the idolatrous practices of tlie nation, and to substitute the 
 pure worship of the true God. He then put into their hands a little 
 image of the Virgin with the infant Redeemer, requesting them to place 
 it in their temples instead of their sanguinary deities.”,^ 
 
 From the facts hitherto alleged, the impartial reader will have gathered 
 what was the spirit, and what the zeal of the Conquerors for the diffusion 
 of Christianity and the conversion of the Aztecs. If this zeal was at 
 times too fiery and impetuous ; if it occasionally impelled the soldiers of 
 the cross to think of appealing to their good swords, on the failure of 
 milder means, for the suppression of an abominable and inhuman idolatry; 
 if they were sometimes betrayed into excesses which themselves would 
 have condemned in their cooler moments ; we are not at all surprised at 
 these occasional outbursts of intemperate zeal or passion. They are 
 nothing more than might have been expected from the heat of a contest, 
 fraught with so many difficulties and perils, pregnant with results so 
 momentous, and so very stirring and exciting in its whole character. 
 One thing is certain, from the testimony of Mr. Prescott himself, that the 
 Catholic missionaries who accompanied the expedition used every effort 
 to mitigate its horrors, and to suppress every species of violence. They 
 were invariably the friends of the natives, whom they sought to protect 
 from cruelty and oppression ; and they were likewise opposed to all forced 
 conversions. We will establish both these facts by undeniable evidence. 
 
 In regard to the first — the prevention of cruelty to the natives — the 
 following testimonies of our historian will speak for themselves : 
 
 “ The cruel system of ripartimientos, or distribution of the Indians as 
 slaves among the Conquerors, had been suppressed by Isabella. Although 
 subsequently countenanced by the government, it was under the most 
 careful limitations. But it is impossible to license crime by halves — to 
 authorize injustice at all, and hope to regulate the measure of it. The 
 eloquent remonstrances of the Dominicans,— who devoted themselves to 
 the good work of conversion in the new world with as much zeal as they 
 showed for persecution (!) in the old,—but above all, those of Las Casas, 
 induced the regent, Ximenes, to send out a commission with full powers 
 
 1 More probably for the Ang( lu.«, or pome oOier devorioo. This gross ignorance of our religious 
 practices i- not unusual with Protestnut writers. 2 Vol. i, pp. 225-0. 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 285 
 
 to inquire into the alleged grievances, and to redress them. It had 
 authority, moreover, to investigate the conduct of the civil officers, and 
 to reform any abuses in their administration. This extraordinary com¬ 
 mission consisted of three Hieronymite friars and an eminent jurist, all 
 men of learning and unblemished piety. They conducted the inquiry in a 
 very dispassionate manner; but, after long deliberation, came to a conclu¬ 
 sion most unfavorable to the demands of Las Casas, who insisted on the 
 entire freedom of the natives. This conclusion they justified on the 
 grounds, that the Indians would not labor without compulsion, and that, 
 unless they labored, they could not be brought into communication with 
 the whites, nor be converted to Christianity. Whatever we' may think 
 of this argument, it was doubtless urged with sincerity by its advocates, 
 whose conduct through their whole administration places their motives 
 above suspicion. They accompanied it with many careful provisions for 
 the protection of the natives.”* 
 
 The excellent commissioners no doubt ascertained on the spot, that 
 the statements of the good Las Casas in regard to cruelties practiced by 
 the Spaniards towards the Indians, were greatly exaggerated. We can 
 understand their decision on no other principle. Of father Olmedo, a 
 man as great and as benevolent as Las Casas, and much more judicious, 
 Mr. Prescott speaks as follows : 
 
 “ The latter of these godly men (father Bartolome de Olmedo) afforded 
 a rare example — rare in any age — of tlie union of fervent zeal with 
 charity ; while he beautifully illustrated in his own conduct the precepts 
 which he taught. He remained with the army through the whole expedi¬ 
 tion, and by his wise and benevolent counsels was often enabled to 
 mitigate the cruelties of the Conquerors, and to turn aside the edge of 
 the sword from the unfortunate natives.” ** 
 
 It is a standing charge against the Conquerors, that they forced con¬ 
 version on the Mexicans. This assertion is not founded on fact. True 
 it is, that Cortes and his soldiers, in the ardor of their zeal for the 
 conversion of the natives, sometimes overstepped the bounds of discretion; 
 but it is equally true, that this excessive ardor was checked and restrained 
 by the missionaries accompanying the expedition, who were entirely 
 opposed to all forced conversions. The indiscretion of Cortes, besides 
 being only occasional, consisted rather in too hastily removing the 
 abominable idol-worship of the Aztecs, than in compelling them to 
 embrace Christianity. At any rate there is not one solitary instance on. 
 record of a forced conversion sanctioned by the Catholic missionaries. 
 These were ever in favor of mildness, and patient instruction of the 
 Indians. All this can be easily established on the authority of Mr. 
 Prescott himself. 
 
 The first example of the alleged intemperate zeal of Cortes, is exhibited 
 in his having caused the hideous idols of Cozumel to be hurled headlong 
 from the summit of the Teocalli. It was a bold and daring stroke, in 
 justification of which there were, however, many palliating circumstances. 
 The good people of Cozumel, on being appealed to by the missionaries to 
 cast away their idols, “exclaimed that these were the gods who sent 
 
 1 Vol. i, pp. 218, 219. 2 Ibid. p. 271. See also Tol. iii, p. 34G. 
 
286 Prescott’s conquest of m e.x i c o . 
 
 them the sunshine and the storm, and, should any violence be offered, 
 they would be sure to avenge it, by sending their lightnings on the heads 
 of the perpetrators.’^* The sequel is thus finely related by Mr. Prescott: 
 
 Cortes was probably not much of a polemic. At all events he 
 preferred on the present occasion action to argument; and thought that the 
 best way to convince the Indians of their error was to prove the falsehood 
 of the prediction. He accordingly, without further ceremony, caused the 
 venerated images to be rolled down the stairs of the great temple, amidst 
 the groans and lamentations of the natives. An altar was hastily con¬ 
 structed, an image of the Virgin and Child placed over it, and Mass was 
 performed by Father Olmedo and his reverend companion for the first 
 time within the walls of a temple in New Spain. The patient ministers 
 tried once more to pour the light of the gospel into the benighted minds 
 of the islanders, and to expound the mysteries of the Catholic faith. . . . 
 They at length found favor with their auditors, who, whether overawed 
 by the bold bearing of the invaders, or convinced of the impotence of 
 deities that could not shield their own shrines from violation, now con¬ 
 sented to embrace Christianity.” ^ 
 
 Something similar occurred at Cempoalla, the capital of the Totonacs : 
 and in both cases the forecast of the great Cortes was justified by the 
 event, — the conversion of the natives. The old Cempoallan cazique, on 
 being urged by the Spaniards to cast down his blood-stained idols, had 
 shuddered at the thought, and had 
 
 ‘‘ Covered his face with his hands, exclaiming, ‘ that the gods would 
 avenge their own wrongs.’ The Christians were not slow in availing them¬ 
 selves of his tacit acquiescence. Fifty soldiers, at a signal from their 
 General, sprang up the great stairway of the temple, entered the building 
 on the summit, the walls of which were hlack with human gore, tore the 
 large wooden idols from their foundations, and dragged them to the edge 
 of the terrace. . . . With great alacrity they rolled the colossal monsters 
 down the steps of the pyramid, amidst the triumphant shouts of their own 
 companions, and the groans and lamentations of the natives. They then 
 consummated the whole by burning them in the presence of the assembled 
 multitude. The same effectibllowed as at Cozumel. Tlie Totonacs, finding 
 their deities incapable of preventing or even punishing this profanation of 
 their shrines, conceived a mean opinion of their power compared with that 
 of the mysterious and formidable'strangers,” (fee.''* 
 
 We have furnished these two examples of the alleged attempt by the 
 Spaniards to force conversion on the natives, because they are the 
 principal, certainly the strongest instances of the kind on record. But 
 will not the candid reader admit, that the hideous rites and loathsome 
 human sacrifices so common among the Aztecs, greatly palliated, if they 
 did not wholly excuse, these strong measures ? Did not the event prove, 
 that this was the most effectual means for bringing about the permanent 
 conversion of the natives ? Who, for example, would blame the English 
 government, should it, even by forcible means, prevent the hideous car of 
 Juggernaut from annually crushing its stated number of victims? Or 
 rather, who that has a soul and loves Christianity does not execrate the 
 ‘^elfish policy of England, which still permits that bloody and hideous 
 
 1 i, P ‘iTl. 2 Ibid, pp. 271-2 3 Ibid. p. 36a 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 287 
 
 wors .ip? Had the English, instead of the Spaniards, conquered Mexico, 
 the horrid human sacrifices would, in all probability, still continue to be 
 offered up in hundreds of thousands every year throughout the whole 
 land of Anahuae ! 
 
 We said that the Catholic missionaries, who accompanied the expedition 
 of the Conquest, uniformly opposed every species of violence towards 
 either the bodies or the souls of the natives. There is no exception to 
 this remark, the truth of which we will now briefly establish on the 
 authority of Mr. Prescott himself. That such was the course of the 
 benevolent Las Casas and of his brother Dominicans, needs no proof, other 
 than what has been already given. Mr. Prescott furnishes us with copious 
 extracts from the writings of Las Casas, developing his opinion as to the 
 proper manner of proceeding in the conversion of the Indians: * 
 
 “ The only way of doing this,” he says, “is by long, assiduous, and 
 faithful preaching, until the heathen shall gather some ideas of the true 
 nature of the Deity, and of the doctrines they are to embrace. Above all, 
 the lives of the Christians should be such as to exemplify the truth of 
 these doctrines, that seeing this, the poor Indian may glorify the Father, 
 and acknowledge Him who has such worshipers for the true and only 
 God.” 
 
 But the missionary, who exercised the greatest influence in softening 
 the horrors of the Conquest, and in checking the headlong zeal of Cortes 
 and his associates, was the great and good father Bartolom6 de Olmedo. 
 His course was uniform. His voice was always for mercy and mildness. 
 Mr. Prescott fully sustains us in this assertion. He says: 
 
 “ It was fortunate for Cortes that Olmedo was notone of those frantic (!) 
 friars, who would have fanned his fiery temper on such occasions into a 
 blaze. It might have had a most disastrous influence on his fortunes ; 
 for he held all temporal consequences light in comparison with the great 
 work of conversion. . . But Olmedo belonged to that class of benevolent 
 missionaries—of whom the Homan Catholic Church, to its credit, has 
 furnished many examples—who rely on spiritual weapons for the great 
 work, inculcating those doctrines of love and mercy which can best touch 
 the sensibilities and win the aflections of their rude audience. These, 
 indeed, are the true weapons of the Church, the weapons employed in the 
 primitive ages, by which it has spread its peaceful banners over the 
 farthest regions of the globe. 
 
 In another place, he draws the following beautiful sketch of the character 
 of Olmedo: 
 
 “In the course of our narrative, we have had occasion to witness more 
 than once the good effects of the interposition of Father Olmedo. Indeed, 
 it is scarcely too much to say, that his discretion in spiritual matters 
 contributed as essentially to the success of the expedition, as did the 
 sagacity and courage of Cortes in temporal. He was a true disciple of 
 the school of Las Casas. His heart was unscathed by that fiery fanaticism ^ 
 which sears and hardens whatever it touches. It melted with the warm 
 glow of Christian charity. He had come out to the new world as a 
 missionary among the heathen, and he shrank from no sacrifice, but that 
 
 1 Voi. iii, Appendix No 6, and vol. i, p. 272—note. 
 
 2 Vol. i, pp. 403-4. 
 
288 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 of the welfare of the poor benighted flock to whom he had consecrated his 
 days. If he had followed the banners of the warrior, it was to mitigate 
 the ferocity of war, and to turn the triumphs of the cross to a good account 
 for the natives themselves, by the spiritual labors of conversion. He 
 afforded the uncommon example, not to have been looked for certainly in 
 a Spanish monk of the sixteenth century (!) — of enthusiasm controlled 
 by reason, a quickening zeal tempered by the mild spirit of toleration.” 
 
 Jeronimo de Aquilar was another of those benevolent missionaries, who 
 accompanied the expedition of the Conquest, who contributed greatly to 
 its success, and who by his mildness and virtues exercised a most 
 humanizing influence on its destinies. He had been for eight years a 
 captive among the natives of Yucatan, and, after having been rescued by 
 the Spaniards, he rendered them invaluable services in the capacity of 
 interpreter. Mr. Prescott gives the following account of the virtues he 
 manifested during his long captivity: 
 
 Aquilar . . . fell into the hands of a powerful cazique who, though 
 he spared his life, treated him at first with great rigor. The patience of 
 the captive, however, and his singular humility, touched the better feelings 
 of the chieftain, who would have persuaded Aquilar to take a wife among 
 his people, but the ecclesiastic steadily refused, in obedience to his vows. 
 This admirable constancy excited the distrust of the cazique, who put his 
 virtue to a severe test by various temptations, and much of the same sort 
 as those with which the devil is said to have assailed St. Anthony. From 
 all these fiery trials, however, like his ghostly predecessor, he came out 
 unscorched. Continence is too rare and difficult a virtue with barbarians, 
 not to challenge their veneration, and the practice of it has made more 
 than one sainP in the old as well as the new world. Aquilar was now 
 entrusted with the care of his master’s household and his numerous wives. 
 He was a man of discretion as well as virtue, and liis counsels were found 
 so salutary, that he was consulted on all important matters. In short, 
 Aquilar became a great man among the Indians.”^ 
 
 Besides the two missionaries just named, there accompanied the Con¬ 
 quest two others of a kindred spirit: Father Juan Diaz, the intimate friend 
 of Olmedo; and Father Gomara, the chaplain of Cortes, and subsequently 
 one of the most famous chroniclers of the expedition. These good men 
 both labored with unremitting zeal, not only for the conversion of the 
 natives, but also for the spiritual welfare of the Spanish army. And 
 though they could not repress every moral disorder, yet were they cheered, 
 on witnessing the eminently religious spirit and the piety of the soldiers 
 under their spiritual charge. Never was there, perhaps, an army animated 
 with a more lively faith in an all-directing Providence, or more regular in 
 prayer and other religious duties. They were in the habit of assisting at 
 the holy sacrifice of the Mass every morning, no matter what or how 
 critical the condition in which they found themselves. “ This punctual 
 ^ performance of Mass by the army,” says Mr. Prescott, “in storm and in 
 sunshine, by day and by night, among friends and enemies, draws forth a 
 warm eulogium from the arch-episcopal editor of Cortes.”^ 
 
 1 Vol i, pp. 480-1, 2 None of them Protestants. 3 Ibid. pp. 274-5. 
 
 4 Vol. iii, p. 137— note. The historian in intimating that Mass was sometimes celebrated ‘•by 
 night,” does not give the true sense of the passage which he quotes from Archbishop Lorenzana, who 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 289 
 
 Did difficulties and dangers encompass the little Spartan band of Con¬ 
 querors; were the soldiers, exhausted with fatigue and bleeding with 
 wounds, on the point of falling into the hands of myriads of enemies 
 panting to pour out their blood on the fatal stone of sacrifice; did all 
 human succor seem to be cut off;—they raised their imploring hands to 
 heaven in fervent supplication ; nor was heaven ever deaf to their prayers ! 
 Did victory perch on their banners; — they sent forth the solemn Te 
 Deum in thanksgiving to God ! No one who has read attentively the 
 liistory of the Conquest in the original authors, can fail to remark this 
 peculiarly religious character of the Conquerors. The dispatches of 
 Cortes breathe this spirit from beginning to end: honest Bernal Diaz’s 
 Histor}'", and Gomara’s Chronicle of the Conquest, as well as the works 
 of almost all the other historians of the expedition, are full of this same 
 spirit. Even the cold and polished Mr. Prescott, much as he hates the 
 religion of the Conquerors, sometimes enters into and does justice to their 
 reliuious feelino-s and even shares somewhat in their enthusiasm as 
 soldiers of the cross. We must confine ourselves to two or three extracts 
 on this subject, which will also be pretty good specimens of the style and 
 manner of the historian. 
 
 In no part of Anahuac, as we have seen, did the Spaniards have to 
 encounter more desperate difficulties and perils than in their many fierce 
 contests with the brave and warlike Tlascalans. In vain did they triumph, 
 time and again, over these indomitable enemies: after each dearly bought 
 victory, the fierce Tlascalans came back with fresh troops and renewed 
 courage to the conflict, stunning the ears of the exhausted and crippled 
 Spaniards with their terrible war-cry, and threatening them with the awful 
 menace, “that their flesh should be hewn from their bodies for sacrifice 
 to the gods.” In the midst of these awful difficulties, the Spaniards had 
 need of all their faith and chivalrous heroism, as soldiers of the cross : 
 
 “ This bold defiance fell heavily on the ears of the Spaniards, not 
 prepared for so pertinacious a spirit in their enemy. They had had ample 
 proof of his courage and formidable prowess. They were now, in their 
 crippled condition, to encounter him with a still more terrible array of 
 numbers. The war, too, from the horrible fate witli wliich it menaced the 
 vanquished, wore a peculiarly gloomy aspect, that pressed heavily on their 
 spirits. ‘ We feared death,’ says the lion-hearted Diaz, with his usual 
 simplicity, ‘for we were men.’ There was scarcely one in the army, that 
 did not confess himself that night to the Reverend Father Olmedo, who 
 was occupied nearly the whole of it, with administering absolution, or the 
 other blessed offices of the Church. Armed with the holy sacraments, 
 the Catholic soldier lay tranquilly down to rest, prepared for any fate that 
 mitrht betide him under the banner of the cross.” ‘ 
 
 The creation of a fleet on the lakes surrounding the great capital of the 
 Aztecs, was, perhaps, the master-stroke of policy of the entire expedition 
 
 only says, that though the Spaniards “ labored day and night, yet Mass was never omitted, in order 
 that the whole work might be atrributed to God.’*—Ku el campo, en una calzada, entre eiiemigo<!, 
 trabajando dia y noche, niinoa se omitia la Missa, paraque t<-da la obra se aciribiiyesse a Dioa ’’ 
 
 1 Vol. i, pp. 436-7. 
 
290 Prescott’s CONQUEST OF MEXICO. 
 
 Mr. Prescott gives the following fine description of the religious ceremo¬ 
 nies accompanying the launching of the brigantines composing this gallant 
 little squadron,— the first fitted out in the new world : 
 
 “ Cortes was resolved that so auspicious an event should be celebrated 
 with due solemnity. On the 28tli of April, the troops were drawn up 
 under arms, and the whole population of Tezcuco assembled to witness 
 the ceremon.y. Mass was performed, and every man in the army, together 
 with the General, confessed and received the sacrament. Prayers were 
 offered up by Father Olmedo, and a benediction invoked on the little 
 navy, the first—worthy of the name—ever launched on American - 
 waters. The signal was given by the firing of a cannon, when the vessels 
 dropping down the canal, one after another, reached the lake in good 
 order; and, as they emerged on its ample bosom, with music sounding, 
 and the royal ensign of Castile proudly floating from their masts, a shout of 
 admiration arose from the countless multitudes of spectators, which mingled 
 with the roar of artillery and musketry from the vessels and the shore ! 
 
 It was a novel spectacle to the simple natives ; and they gazed with 
 wonder on the gallant ships, which, fluttering like sea-birds on their 
 snowy pinions, bounded lightly over the waters, as if rejoicing in their 
 element. It touched the stern hearts of the Conquerors^with a glow of 
 rapture, and, as they felt that heaven had blessed their undertaking, they 
 broke forth by general accord into the -noble anthem of the Te Deum.” * 
 
 We close our extracts on this subject with the passage,* in which our 
 'historian finely describes the thanksgiving after the glorious termination 
 of the siege by the fall of Tenochtitlan. Intoxicated with their splendid 
 victory, the Spanish soldiers were at first inclined to give way to inordinate 
 rejoicing ; but soon, at the voice of Father Olmedo, their enthusiastic 
 jubilee was made to assume a religious character: 
 
 Loud and long was their revelry, which was carried to such an excess, 
 as provoked the animadversion of Father Olmedo, who intimated that this 
 was not the fitting way to testify their sense of the favors shown them by 
 the Almighty. Cortes admitted the justice of the rebuke, but craved 
 some indulgence for a soldier’s license in the hour of victory. The 
 following day was appointed for the commemoration of their successes in 
 a more suitable manner. A procession of the whole army was then 
 formed, with Father Olmedo at its head. ■ The soiled and tattered banners 
 of Castile, which had waved over many a field of battle, now threw their 
 shadows on the peaceful array of the soldiery, as they slowly moved 
 along rehearsing the litany, and displaying the image of the Virgin and 
 “the blessed symbol of man’s redemption. The Reverend Father pro¬ 
 nounced a discourse, in which he briefly reminded the troops of their 
 cause of thankfulness to Providence for conducting them safe through 
 their long and perilous pilgrimage ; and, dwelling on the responsibility 
 incurred by their present position, he besought them not to abuse the 
 ■rights of conquest, hut to treat the unfortunate Indians with humanity. 
 The sacrament was then administered to the commander-in-chief and the 
 .principal cavaliers, and the services concluded with a solemn thanksgiving 
 to the God of battles, who had enabled them to carry the banner of the 
 cross triumphant over this barbaric empire.”^ 
 
 1 Vol. iii, pp. 87, 88. 
 
 2 Vol. iii, pp.213, 214. Those wiio may wi.sh to see more on this branch of the subject are referred 
 to the following among many other passages of our author ; vol. i, pp. 284, 287, 470, 473; vol. ii pp 
 163, 236, 257 ; and vol. iii, pp. 143. 104, 151, &o 
 
the religious point of view. 
 
 291 
 
 We have already seen what was the character of the missionary 
 pioneers who accompanied the expedition of the Conquest; taming its 
 ferocity, or turning away its mitigated horrors from the poor, stricken, 
 and vanquished natives. We have seen how the banner.of the cross, 
 preceding or planted by the side of that of earthly conquest, elevated the 
 character, and subdued the violence of the latter. We must now briefly 
 treat of the Catholic missionaries who labored among the Indians, during 
 the years immediately following the Conquest. For the spirit which 
 animated them, for their unquenchable zeal to promote the salvation of 
 the natives, and for the eminent success which crowned their labors, we 
 would ask no better witness than the deeply prejudiced, though highly 
 accomplished Mr. Prescott. Having space for but little commentary, we 
 shall confine ourselves almost entirely to his unexceptionable testimony ; 
 from which it will appear that Father Olmedo was not alone,in the 
 inculcation and practice of every Christian and priestly virtue. Speaking 
 of the interposition of Cortes to obtain additional missionaries from Spain, 
 our author says: 
 
 “ Whatever disregard he may have shown to the political rights of the 
 natives, Cortes manifested a commendable solicitude for their spiritual 
 welfare. He requested the emperor to send out holy men to the country; 
 not bishops and pampered prelates, who too often squandered the substance 
 of the Church in riotous living, but godly persons, members of religious 
 fraternities, whose lives miglit be a fitting commentary on their teaching. 
 Thus only, he adds,— and the remark is worthy of note,— can they 
 exercise any influence over the natives, who have been accustomed to see 
 the least departure from morals in their own priesthood punished with the 
 utmost rigor, of the law. In obedience to these suggestions, twelves 
 Franciscan friars embarked for New Spain, which they reached early 
 in 1524.” ' 
 
 Of their character and reception in Mexico, he speaks as follows : 
 
 “They-were men of unblemished piety of life, nourished with the 
 learning of the cloister, and, like many others whom the Romish (!) 
 Church has sent forth on such apostolic missions, counted all personal 
 sacrifices as Utile in the sacred cause to which they were devoted. The 
 presence of the reverend fathers in the country was greeted with general 
 rejoicing. The inhabitants of the towns through which they passed came 
 out in a body to welcome them; processions were formed of the natives 
 bearing wax tapers in their hands, and the bells of the churches rung out 
 a joyous peal in honor of their arrival. Houses of refreshment were 
 provided along their route to the capital; and when they entered it, they 
 were met by a brilliant cavalcade of the principal cavaliers and citizens, 
 with Cortes at their head. The General dismounting, and bending one 
 knee to the ground, kissed the robes of Father Martin of Valencia, the 
 principal of the fraternity. Tlie natives, filled with amazement at the 
 viceroy’s humiliation before men whose naked feet and tattered garments 
 gave them the aspect of mendicants, henceforth regarded them as beings 
 of a superior nature. Tlie Indian chronicler of Tlascala does not conceal 
 his admiration of this edifying condescension of Cortes, which he pro¬ 
 nounces ‘ one of the most heroical acts of his life.’”^ 
 
 1 Vol. iii, pp. 364-5. 
 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. 260-6. 
 
292 
 
 PRESCOTT'S CO-N QUEST OF MEXICO. 
 
 Of the labors and success of these excellent missionaries our historian 
 says: 
 
 The missionaries lost no time in the good work of conversion. They 
 began their preaching through interpreters, until they had acquired a 
 competent knowledge of the language themselves. They opened schools • 
 andi founded colleges^ in which the native youth were instructed in profane 
 as well as Christian learning. The ardor of the Indian neophyte emulated 
 that of his teacher. In a few years every vestige of tlie primitive Teocallis 
 was elfaced from the land. The uncouth idols of the country, and unhap¬ 
 pily the hierOglyphical manuscripts, shared the same fate. Yet the 
 missionary and the convert did much to repair these losses by their 
 copious accounts of the Aztec institutions, collected from the most 
 authentic sources.’" 
 
 We may here remark, that, but for the indefatigable labors of Father 
 Sahagun, and of other Catholic missionary antiquaries, we would, in all 
 probability, now have no account whatever of the Aztec institutions. 
 Had they not, with the aid of the Indian converts, deciphered the pictorial 
 writings of the Mexicans, what modern antiquary would now be able to 
 unfold their meaning ? Has one even attempted it with any thing like 
 success ? That all the Aztec manuscripts have not perished, is manifest 
 from the large collections to which Lord Kingsborough had access, and 
 from those still preserved in the museum of the Propaganda at Rome, and 
 in other places. But has the world grown much wiser, on the subject of 
 the Aztec antiquities, from perusing the insignes nugoe which cover the 
 splendid pages of Lord Kingsborough’s work ? Of Father Sahagun, the 
 greatest of all the Mexican antiquaries, Mr. Prescott speaks as follows: 
 
 ^ “ Father Sahagun, who has done better service in this way than others 
 
 of his order, describes with simple brevity the rapid work of demolition 
 (of the Aztec Teocallis, stained with the blood of human victims). ‘We 
 took tlie children of the caziques,’ he says, ‘into our schools, where we 
 taught them to read, write, and to chant. The children of the poorer 
 natives were brought together in the court-yard, and there instructed in 
 the Christian faith. After our teaching, one or two brethren took the 
 pupils to some neighboring Teocalli, and, by working at it for a few days, 
 they levelled it to the ground. In this way they demolished, in a short 
 time, all the Aztec temples, great and small, so that not a vestige of them 
 remained.’ ” ^ 
 
 What modern Christian antiquary will drop a tear of regret over those 
 demolished temples, dedicated to an inhuman worship ? Was not their 
 destruction absolutely necessary, to eradicate from the minds of the 
 converts all temptations to revert to their antiquated superstitions ? Totally 
 unfitted for the purposes of the Christian worship, they did but burden the 
 soil with their cumbrous and misshapen bulk ; and their fall was a neces¬ 
 sary preliminary to the introduction of Christianity. And yet there are 
 found many kind and sympathetic souls, even among Christians, who 
 bitterly lament the fall of the Aztec Teocallis! Would these men : would 
 the polished Mr. Prescott, weep, if the hideous and blood-stained car of 
 Juggernaut were dashed into fragments? Would their antiquarian, in 
 1 Vol. iii, pp. 266-7. 2 Ibid—nor<. 
 
 ) 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 29& 
 
 this case, get the better of their Christian zeal ? We are really curious 
 to know what these enlightened gentlemen would have said, had the 
 English government possessed Christianity enough to abolish the bloody 
 and inhuman worship prevalent in India. 
 
 Of the astonishing success which crowned the labors of the mission¬ 
 aries among the Mexicans, our author speaks as follows: 
 
 “ The business of conversion went on prosperously among the several 
 tribes of the great Nahuatlac family. In about twenty years from the 
 first'advent of the missionaries, one of their body (Father Toribio) could 
 make the pious vaunt, that nine millions of converts—-a number probably 
 exceeding the population of the country — had been admitted within the 
 Christian fold!”^ 
 
 The intelligent reader is left to decide between the “probable” 
 conjecture of our modern historian, and the positive testimony of a grave 
 cotemporary writer, of undoubted veracity, who relates what he himself 
 saw, and in what he was a prominent actor. Even allowing that the 
 fervid zeal of the good missionary led him into some exaggeration, it will 
 still remain certain, that the number of converts was prodigious and 
 almost staii-ofering belief. 
 
 How are we to explain this remarkable fact ? Can it be accounted for 
 on merely human principles; or must *we have recourse to a divine 
 interposition? Were the natives induced to embrace Christianity in such 
 vast numbers, by natural or by supernatural causes ? If the former, how 
 then are we to explain the remarkable phenomenon ? If the latter, then 
 is it not apparent, that the Roman Catholic religion, thus wonderfully 
 blessed by God, and impressed with the seal of His approbation, is that 
 true religion, which Christ died to establish, and whose ministry He 
 divinely commissioned “to teach all nations ?” 
 
 We will devote the remainder of this paper — already long enough — 
 to a brief investigation of this important matter; and we regret that our 
 limits will necessarily compel us to pass over many other things, connected 
 with the Religious Point of View of the Conquest, upon which we had 
 originally intended to animadvert. Such is among many other things, 
 the peculiarly religious character of Cortes, which stood forth strong even 
 in death 
 
 Mr. Prescott’s theory for explaining the conversion of the natives to 
 Catholic Christianity is surely simple enough. It strongly reminds us of 
 the theory of another very polished gentleman. Gibbon, for explaining the 
 early progress of Christianity among the Greeks and Romans. Both of 
 these philosophers wholly discard miracles and every thing supernatural ; 
 and both draw pretty strongly on their fancies for the natural causes, 
 which they think, sufficiently explain the phenomenon. Tiie following 
 passage, to a portion of wdiich we directed attention in our first paper, 
 appears to contain the gist of Mr. Prescott’s theory for explaining the 
 inversion of the Aztecs: 
 
 1 Vol. iii, p 267. 
 
 2 See an account of his death, and of his last will and testament, in I’rescott, vol. iii. 
 
 2D2 ' 
 
294 Prescott’s conquest op Mexico. 
 
 “ The Aztec worship was remarkable for its burdensome ceremonial, 
 and prepared its votaries for the pomp and splendors of the Romish (!) 
 ritual. It was not difficult to pass from the fasts and festivals of the one 
 religion, to the fasts and festivals of the other; to transfer their homage 
 from the fantastic idols of their own creation to the beautiful forms in 
 sculpture and in painting which decorated the Christian cathedral.'’ ' 
 
 We protest with all our energy against this false and odious parallel, 
 between two systems of religion as difterent from each other as light is 
 from darkness. What! Compare the venerable religion of three-fourths 
 of the Christian world, embracing too the most polished and enlightened 
 nations of the earth ;— compare the religion, which was the only Chris¬ 
 tian one on the face of the earth for the first fifteen hundred years of 
 Christianity; — compare the religion which preserved the Bible, which 
 taught all the nations Christianity, which was ever the fruitful mother of 
 Christians and the parent of Christian civilization; — compare the 
 religion which has been the teeming mother of republics and of heroes ; — 
 compare the religion of such men as Fenelon, Xavier, De Sales, Borromeo, 
 Cheverus, Olmedo, and thousands of other bright ornaments of human 
 nature and of Christian society ; — compare this venerable religion, with 
 the impure, the abominable, th^ inhuman, the blood-stained, the hideous 
 superstition of the degraded Aztecs ! 0 Mr. Prescott ! smooth, polished, 
 
 refined Mr. Prescott! How sadly has thy prejudice against the religion 
 of thy fathers betrayed thee ! Cast of!' that dark cloud, which envelopes 
 an otherwise beautiful, clear, and noble intellect. It is wholly unworthy 
 of thee, and will add nothing to the brightness of thy posthumous fame. 
 
 Was it then so easy a thing for the Aztecs to renounce their time-hon¬ 
 ored worship, intimately connected as it was with their early history, and 
 associated with the most brilliant deeds of their heroes, and the glory of 
 their empire ? Was it so easy for them to trample upon rites, so closely 
 intertwined with their national manners and customs ; with their warlike 
 displays, and with their peaceful pageants and festivals ; with their patriotic 
 feelings, and with their very existence as a people ? Was it so very easy 
 for them to resign a religion which flattered the passions, in favor of one 
 which imposed so many severe restraints on them , to renounce a religion 
 pandering to impurity and every abomination, in favor of what Mi\ 
 Prescott, in this very passage, called the unsullied rites of Catholic 
 Christianity ? 
 
 That the Aztecs clung with great tenacity to their abominable super¬ 
 stitions ; that they could not be induced to renounce them without the 
 greatest difficulty, Mr. Prescott himself is our witness. He tells us of 
 the fierce resistance the Spaniards every where met with, whenever they 
 proposed a change of religion to the natives ; he tells us of the stern 
 opposition of the weak Montezuma ; he tells us of the awful death-struggle 
 of the Aztecs for their religion and their independence, when tliey^ 
 exhibited their willinu'iiess to be buried under the ruins of their besie<»:ed 
 
 O O 
 
 1 Vol. iii, pp 267-8. 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 295 
 
 capital, rather than yield to the Conquerors; and he tells us how, in this 
 last desperate conflict, their enthusiasm was kindled by the appeals of 
 their priests, how it received additional warmtli from the fires wliicli 
 burned on the summits of their Teocallis, and how it was increased to 
 wild fanaticism and absolute madness, by the sounds which were sent 
 forth by the signal drum of* the great temple of their war-god. And yet, 
 it was easy for them to renounce all this superstition, and to embrace in 
 its stead the painful religion of their Conquerors! 
 
 Or, is it to be made a matter of crimination ao-ainst the Catholic 
 Church, that the “pomp and splendor” of her ritual won the admiration 
 and captivated the senses of the natives ? Is it her fault, that the religion 
 she teaches possesses more charms and moj-e winning graces than the 
 “cold abstractions” of Protestantism; that it appeals not only to the 
 mind, but also to the heart ? Was it her fault, that even the barbarous 
 Aztecs were compelled to admire her divine beauty, and to be forcibly 
 .struck with her “ heavenly hue ?” Was it a fault in her to have wisely 
 tolerated, at least for a time, such of the Aztec national usages as warred 
 with no principle of her faith, and to have proceeded gradual’y with the 
 civilization of the natives ? Had not such been the wise mode of 
 procedure adopted, according to the testimony of the Protestant church 
 historian Mosheim,* by Christian missionaries from the earliest ages of 
 the’Church? Had not the enlightened Pontiff, St. Gregory the Great, 
 recommended this same prudent course of conduct to St. Augustine, 
 the apostle of England ? ^ And had it no been adopted in both cases, 
 with the most beneficial results, and without the sacrifice of any principle 
 of faith ? Was it any harm to consecrate to the service of the true God, 
 in the “ unsullied ” worship of Catholicity, rites which, liarmless in 
 themselves, had been hitherto employed in an impure and abominable 
 superstition ? And is it probable, as Mr. Prescott insinuates, that the 
 Catholic missionaries, whom himself represents as men “ of unblemished 
 purity of life,” only sought, in the conversion of the natives, to substitute 
 one form of idolatry for another ? 
 
 True it is—and it makes nothino* at^ainst our aruumeht — that the 
 missionaries discovered among the Aztecs many religious tenets and 
 observances, which forcibly reminded them of some peculiar institutions 
 of Catholicity, and almost compelled the belief that their ancestors had 
 been originally indoctrinated in Christianity. If they were right in this 
 inference, the coincidences alluded to aflbrd a strong corroborative 
 evidence of the antiquity and divine origin of those Caiholic doctrines. 
 Besides the cross, as a symbol of worship, the Aztecs had religious rites 
 which very nearly resembled the Catholic sacraments of the holy 
 eucharist and baptism. Let us hear Mr. Prescott: 
 
 “ Their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious 
 
 1 Ilisforia Koclesiast SjbcuI. II, p. 2, c. iv, nota. 
 
 2 Cf. I,inward. Antiquities .Anglo-Saxon Chnrch, p. 24, American edition. M. Fithian, Philadel¬ 
 phia, 1841 
 
296 
 
 Prescott’s conquest of Mexico. 
 
 rite wliich reminded them of the Christian communion. On these 
 occasions, an image of the tutelary deity of the Aztecs was made of the 
 flour of maize, mixed with blood, and, after consecration by the priests, 
 was distributed among the people, who, as they ate it, ‘ showed signs of 
 humiliation and sorrow, declaring it was the flesh of the deity.’ ‘ How 
 could the Roman Catholic fail to recognize the awful ceremony of 
 the eucharist?”^ .... With the same feelings, they witnessed another 
 ceremony, that of the Aztec baptism ; in which, after a solemn invoca¬ 
 tion, the head and lips of the infant were touched with water, and a 
 name was given to it; while the goddess Cioacoatl, who presided over 
 childbirth, was implored, ‘that the sin, which was given to us before the 
 beginning of the world, might not visit the cluld,.but that, cleansed by 
 these waters, it might live and be born anew’ 
 
 These coincidences were striking enough ; and they surely went far 
 ■-> towards warranting the conclusion of the missionaries. But, mixed up as 
 
 those Christian rites were, with the most abominable superstitions 
 
 of a worship stained with human gore, they couM not greatly facilitatf 
 the adoption by the natives of the “unsullied rites” of Catholic Chris 
 tianity. Something more than a mere partial coincidence ; something 
 more than mere human power or meie human means, w'as necessary to 
 bring about, with such astonishing rapidity, the complete and general 
 conversion of the Aztecs. The finger of God was there, as clearly as it 
 was in the conversion of any heathen nation that ever entered tlie Chris¬ 
 tian fold. We can explain the phenomenon on no other principle. The 
 mere zeal, and unblemished purity, and devotedness of the Catholic 
 missionaries, however they may have aided, could not, of themselves, 
 without the divine favor and blessing, have accomplished the work. 
 Unless God build the house, in vain do they labor who build it.” 
 
 Mr. Prescott, like Gibbon and most others of the modern fashionable 
 historical school, has a pious horror of all miracles. He proceeds on 
 • the assumption, that “the age of miracles has ceased;” for which 
 position there seems to be no other ground, than the acknowledged fact, 
 that such wonders have wholly ceased among Protestants ! But is “ the 
 right hand of God shortened ? ” Or did Christ set any limitation as to 
 time, to the numerous promises he made to his disciples in lenard to the 
 power conferred on them for working miracles? If thei-e be any truth in 
 history, it is certain that miracles have been wi’ought in every age, and 
 ^n every great emergency of the Church. One of these emergencies, 
 :strongly demanding such an exhibition of divine power, is the conversion 
 of a heathen nation to Christianity. Surely then, if ever, miracles should 
 be performed ; and, notwithstanding our historian’s skepticism, we incline 
 to the belief that they were performed in the conversion of Mexico. We 
 ' • will oive two instances, to which Mr. Prescott alludes with a lurkinsf 
 
 sneer, or with open unbelief. 
 
 The first is the resurrection of the sister of Tanzapan, lord of Michuacan, 
 
 1 I'he author here quotes Veytia, Hist. Autijfua, L. I. c. 18; and Aeosta, I.ib, 5. c 2l. 
 
 2 V\>1. ill, pp. SJSi-o. 
 
 3 Ibid p 885 For tiiis remarkable doctrine of the Aatecs, Mr. Prescott cites the great antiquarv 
 Bahugun. Hist, de Nueva Kspagna, 1. vi, c. 83. 
 
THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 297 
 
 after she liacl been dead four days. The fact was believed by her brother, 
 as yet a heathen, wlio, at her instance, disbanded a powerful army which 
 he had collected to march against the Spaniards. It also commemorated 
 in the Michuacan Picture-Recoi-ds ; and is related by Ixtlilxochitl, the 
 Indian lord and historian of Tezcuco, who derived it from a £<:randson of 
 Tanzapan.* Is such evidence as this to be invalidated by the mere 
 skeptical doubt of Mr. Prescott ? 
 
 The other miraculous occurrence alluded to took place at Tlascala. 
 We will give it in the words of Mr. Prescott, who says in a note : — 
 “ the miracle is reported by Herrera, and believed by Solis : ”— 
 
 “ A large cross was erected in one of the great courts or squares. 
 Mass was celebrated every day in the presence of the army and of crowds 
 of natives, who, if tliey did not comprehend its full import, were so far 
 edified, that they learned to reverence the religion of their Conquerors. 
 The direct interposition of heaven, however, wrought more for their 
 conversion than the best homily of priest or soldier. Scarcely had the 
 Spaniards left the city — the tale (!) is told on very respectable autliority 
 — when a thin, transparent cloud descended and settled like a column on 
 the cross, and, wrapping it round in its luminous folds, continued to emit 
 a soft, celestial radiance through the night, thus proclaiming the sacred 
 character of the symbol, on which was shed the halo of divinity.” ^ 
 
 But we must bring our remarks to a close. Few can have failed to notice 
 the striking coincidence, in point of time, of the remarkable defection from 
 the ranks of Catholicity in the old, and of the more remarkable additions 
 to her numbers in the new world. At the very lime that the reformation 
 was making the most rapid progress in Europe, tearing whole nations 
 from the bosom of the Church, and threatening her with total destruction; 
 this Church, far from being appalled by the danger which menaced her 
 very existence at home, arose in her heavenly strength, and, indued with 
 the vigor of youth, stretched forth her gigantic arms to the east and to the 
 west, grasped at spiritual empire in new worlds which her children had 
 discovered, and reared in triumph her glorious banner of the cross — 
 svhich had been despised at home — in the heart of new nations and of 
 new peoples, who “rose up and called her blessed 1 ” She thus became 
 more Catholic after^ than she had been before^ the reformation, so called! 
 Her Xaviers, her Olmedos, her Martins of Valencia, and her other 
 indefati'»-able missionaries, more than retrieved her losses in the old 
 
 O 
 
 world, by additional conquests to her communion in the new. 
 
 So it had been in every great emergency of her history. At the very 
 periods in which she had been threatened with the greatest dangers, she 
 had not only come out victorious from the struggle which menaced her 
 very existence, but she had acquired new vigor, and had marched on to 
 new conquests 1 Who will say that the finger of God is not in all this ? 
 Who can explain it in any other way, than by admitting that a mysterious 
 Providence watches over her ; and that the God who said : “ The gates 
 OF HELL SHALL NO.T PREVAIL AGAINST HER,” has fully redeemed His 
 promise ? , 
 
 1 Prescott admits a., this, vol. iii, p. ID, note. 2 Vol.i, pp. 431,482. 
 
XV EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE NORTH¬ 
 WEST 
 
 FIRST PAPER.—Bancroft’s account.* 
 
 Bancroft as an historian — An old Relation — Catholic missionary zeal — Spirit of Catholic and 
 Trotestant colonists compared — Who established the first missions in North America? — The 
 Franciscans and Jesuits — The first Jesuit missionaries — The first college — And the first 
 hospital — The Ursulines in Canada — The mission to the Hurons — Fathera De Brebeuf and 
 Daniel — Their manner of life — The chief Ahasistari—Mission to the Algonquins — And to the 
 Chippewas —“ The New England Elliott ” — Father Jogues—And Father Bres.sani — Mission among 
 the Abanakis — Mohawks — Onondagas — And Cayugas — Extent of the missions — Penetrating 
 westward — Father Marquette —His death — Subsequent history of the Jesuit missions — Policy 
 of England. 
 
 The history of the early Catholic missions in Canada and in the north¬ 
 western portion of the United States, inimately connected as it is with 
 that of our country itself, cannot fail to awaken the attention and excite 
 the interest of every American, who is curious to investigate the rise and 
 progress of our early Colonies. The civil history of the country cannot, 
 in fact, be written without drawing copiously on the facts comprised in 
 its early religious annals. 
 
 Bancroft, in his History of the United States, has devoted an entire 
 chapter to this very interesting subject, so far as it came within his general 
 scope.. Considering that he is a Protestant, he has certainly been as 
 impartial as could have been expected, in recounting the labors of the 
 early Catholic missionaries among the Indians ; and, though he has done 
 them nothing more than justice. Catholics, who are usually grateful for 
 small favors in this way, owe him a debt of gratitude. 
 
 He has availed himself of the excellent history of Charlevoix, as well 
 as of the detailed accounts, or Relations, of the Jesuit missionaries them¬ 
 selves. As far as he goes, he is generally accurate ; but we regret that 
 he has confined himself to the first fifty years of these missions, embracing 
 the period from 1632 to 1680. His style is brilliant and sparkling, but 
 wanting in that natural simplicity which best su ts historical narratives, 
 especially those which treat of religious subjects. The accounts of the 
 Jesuit fathers, from which he borrows copiously, possess this charming 
 quality in an eminent degree. We have also detected, here and there, a 
 lurking sneer, intended, we apprehend, as a douceur to Protestant preju- ‘ ^ 
 dice. Yet withal, there is an apparent impartiality, and a certain air of 
 candor and liberality pervading this portion of his History. 
 
 * Bancroft’s History of tho United States, Vol. iii, Chapter xx. 
 
 298 
 
Bancroft’s account. 
 
 299 
 
 Chance lately threw into our way one of the oldest and most interesting 
 of those Relations, to which the American historian so often refers. It is 
 a duodecimo volume of 103 pages, was printed at Paris in 1650, and it 
 is entitled : A Relation of what passed in the Mission of the Fathers of 
 the Society of Jesus among the Hurons, a territory of New France, in 
 the years 1648 and 1649.”‘ This narrative is written in that simple 
 manner and unctious spirit, which at once delights and edifies the reader. 
 It enters into the most minute and interesting details, furnishes many 
 thrilling anecdotes, and, by its copiousness, will enable the reader pf 
 Bancroft to supply the deficiency of his comparatively meagre account. 
 We shall draw copiously on this little work; but before we introduce our 
 readers to its interesting contents, we must rapidly review, and summarily 
 condense, the account of the early Jesuit missions as given by the 
 American historian, whose authority in this matter is surely unexcep¬ 
 tionable. 
 
 It is the glory of the Catholic Church, to have been in all ages signalized 
 by successful missionary zeal. From the day that her first minkters 
 heard the divine command, “Go, teach all nations,”—down to the present 
 time, she has ever burned with an ardent zeal for the instruction and 
 salvation of mankind. She alone has, in every age, fulfilled this divine 
 commission ; she alone has converted the nations ; she alone has ever been 
 the true and fruitful mother of civilization. After the lapse of more than 
 eighteen hundred years, the same fire still glows in the bosom of her 
 missionaries, as warmed the breasts of the first apostles of the Lamb. 
 
 At every period of her history, her clergy have been among the chief 
 pioneers of civilization. The Cross always accompanied, sometimes it even 
 preceded, the banner of earthly conquest. Zeal for the salvation of souls 
 was the very life and soul of every maritime enterprise, and of all expedi¬ 
 tions for conquest. The sword subjected the bodies, the Cross won the 
 hearts, of all those who successively entered the ever widening pale of 
 the Christian civilization. 
 
 So it had been in South, so it was also in North America. In both, 
 Catholics had the honor of first pioneering the way. In both, the Catholic 
 clergy established the first missions, and made the first proselytes to Chris¬ 
 tianity among the aboriginal inhabitants. The Catholic French in the 
 North were animated by a spirit of religious zeal, similar to that which 
 had actuated the Catholic Spaniards in the more Southern portion of the 
 coniineut; Let us hear what Bancroft testifies on the subject: 
 
 “ Religious zeal, not less than commercial ambition, had influenced 
 France to recover Canada; and Champlain, its governor, whose imper¬ 
 ishable name will rival with posterity the fame of Smith and of Hudson, 
 ever disinterested and compassionate, full of honor and pi’obity, of ardent 
 devotion and burninu" zeal, esteemed ‘ the salvation of a soul worth more 
 than the conquest of an empire.’ 
 
 1 
 
 1 “ Uelution d« ce qiii eat pasae eii la Mission des Peres de la Conipagnie de Jesus aux Ilurons, 
 pays de la Nouvelie Fraiioe, aux annees 1648 et 1649. Par. P. Paul Kaguenau, de la uieeme 
 Couipagiiie.” A i aris, 1650. 2 Vol. iii, p. 119. 
 
 I 
 
300 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 “ Thus it was neither commercial enterprise, nor royal ambition, which 
 carried the power of France into the heart of our continent: the motive 
 was religion. Religious enthusiasm colonized New-England ; and re- 
 lioious enthusiasm founded Montreal, made a conquest of the wilderness 
 on tlie upper lah,es, and explored the Mississippi. Puritanism gave New 
 Eiif^'land its worship and its schools; the Roman (Catholic) Church 
 created for Canada its altars, its hospitals, and its seminaries.” ‘ 
 
 The religious enthusiasm, which colonized New-England, was of a 
 different kind altogether from that which founded and peopled Canada. 
 Nowhere do we read, that the French Catholic pilgrims of Canada either 
 enacted blue laws, persecuted each other for conscience sake, drove fellow 
 Christians into the wilderness, or hanged people for witchcraft! Neither 
 do we hear of their having overreached the Indians, driven them from 
 post to post, and made war on and exterminated them, after having- 
 goaded them into desperation by insufferable exactions ! Nor do we read 
 of the Catholic clergy acting as chaplains to the armies which were 
 marcliing to exterminate the poor aborigines, nor making long prayers 
 at the head of the invading troops, on the eve of battle, as did the “godly 
 Stone,” when the^ colonists of New-England were marching against the 
 Pequods of Connecticut! In all these things, and in many more, the 
 glory is all on the side of the Puritans ! 
 
 Again, the policy pursued by the two sets of colonists, for extending 
 the boundaries of their respective territories, was widely different. The 
 Puritans seem to have thought very little about converting and civilizing 
 the aborigines. Missionary enterprise among them seldom, if ever, pre¬ 
 ceded shrewd contracts for additional territory, or expeditions for conquest; 
 they rarely ever followed either. The Puritans seem to have thought 
 little about the bodies, and still less about the souls of the poor Indians. 
 Their conversion to Christianity w-as an after consideration; the acquisition 
 of their lands was the primary object of Puritan missionary zeal. 
 
 We read indeed of a feeble, and, in a great measure, unsuccessful effort 
 of the Puritan minister John Elliott, to convert the miserable remnants 
 of the Indian tribes, which the humanity of the pious pilgrims had 
 suffered still to drag o it a miserable existence in the immediate vicinity 
 of Boston. We read also of a most disgraceful attempt made by 
 ministers sent from Boston to break up the flourishing Catholic missions 
 established among the Abenakis of Maine, by the sainted Catholic mis¬ 
 sionary, Sebastian Rasies. Mr. Bancroft himself, a great advocate for 
 the Puritans, is our witness for all these facts; to which we shall have 
 occasion to refer more fully hereafter.^ 
 
 On the contrary, the same historian assures us, that “the genius of 
 
 Champlain.could devise no method of building up the dominion 
 
 of France in Canada, but by an alliance with the Hurons, or of confirming 
 that alliance but by the establishment of missions.” And he adds : “ Such 
 a policy was congenial to a Church which cherishes every member of 
 
 1 Vol. iii, p 121. In the Review of W ebster's Bunker Hill Speech. 
 
Bancroft’s account. 
 
 301 
 
 the human race, without regard to lineage or skin,’^ * The genius of the 
 pilgrims devised other means altogether, for establishing Puritan dominion 
 in New England. The policy of their church, or churches, seems also 
 to have been very widely diUerent. They were far too enlightened to 
 cherish the tawny-skinned Indians: their delicate nerves were even 
 greatly shocked at the bare sight of an ugly old woman, who happened 
 to have a mole on her skin,— a certain indication that she was a witch! 
 The sublime sentiment of Ciiamplain, “who esteemed the salvation of a 
 soul worth more than the conquest of an’ empire,” seems never to have 
 entered their narrow minds 1 
 
 The glory of having discovered America, and of having established 
 the first colonies, the first missions, the first college, and the first chari¬ 
 table institutions in North America, belongs entirely to the Catholic 
 religion. Mr. Bancroft’s authority bears us out in all these assertions. 
 The Franciscans were the first Catholic missionaries, and the first of any 
 kind, who labored among the Indian tribes of North America.^ As early 
 as the year 1615, we find Franciscan missionaries among the Indians of 
 Maine. Our historian says : 
 
 “ The first permanent efforts of French enterprise, in colonizing America, 
 preceded any permanent English settlement north of the Potomac. Years 
 before the pilgrims anchored within Cape Cod, the Roman (Catholic) 
 Church had been planted, by missionaries from France, in the eastern 
 moiety of Maine ; and Le Caron, an unambitiDus Franciscan, had 
 peneti-ated the land of the Mohawks, had passed to the north in the 
 hunting-grounds of the Wyaiidots, and, bound by his vows to the life of 
 a beggar, had, on foot, or paddling a bark canoe, gone onward and still 
 onward, taking alms of the savages, till he reached the rivers of Lake 
 Huron. While Quebec contained scarce fifty inhabitants, priests of the 
 Franciscan order — Le Caron, Viel, Sagard—had labored for years as 
 missionaries in Upper Canada, or made their way to the neutral Huron 
 tribe that dwelt on the waters of the Niagara.” ^ 
 
 In 1632, the “ Franciscans having, as a mendicant order, been excluded 
 from the rocks and deserts of the new world, the office of converting the • 
 heathen of Canada, and thus enlarging the borders of French dominion, 
 was entrusted solely to the Jesuits.”^ For this change the historian can 
 assio’n no better motive, than that the Franciscans were a mendicant order— 
 as if the Jesuits who succeeded them had not also taken the vow of poverty,— 
 and the interposition of “devotees ” at the French Court, which felt that 
 the “ aspiring honor of the Gallican church was interested.”^ 
 
 In the first place, it does not appear, even from Mr. Bancroft’s own 
 showing, that the Franciscans were wholly excluded from the missions of 
 North America. For as late as 1680, we find that the Franciscan, 
 Hennepin, and his associates of the same order, accompanied the expedi¬ 
 tion of La Salle for exploring the Mississippi. It was he who first 
 penetrated to the Falls of St. Anthony, — so called by him after the patron 
 of his expedition, St. Anthony of Padua. “On a tree near the cataract. 
 
 1 Vol. iii, p. l‘Jl. 
 
 3 Ibid.pp llS-19. 
 2E 
 
 
 2 Except those who labored in Mexico. 
 4 Ibid, p 120. 
 
 5 Ibid. 
 
1 ? 
 
 802 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS^. 
 
 the Franciscan engraved the Cross and the arms of France ; and, after a 
 summer’s rambles, diversified by a short captivity among the Sioux, he 
 and his companions returned, by'wayof the Wisconsin and Fox rivers, to 
 the French mission at Green Bay 
 
 Perhaps the intrinsic merits of the Jesuits, their more complete organi¬ 
 zation, and their greater adaptation to the Indian missions, had at least as 
 much to do with their having been selected for this work by the French 
 authorities, as the aspiring honor of the Gallican church, or the interference 
 of court devotees. Mr. Bancroft himself does justice to the character of 
 the Jesuits, and bears us out in our mode of explaining the action of the 
 French court on the subject. After having well spoken of the first estab¬ 
 lishment of the Jesuit order,^ he bears this testimony to the worth of the, 
 first missionaries of the society in Canada : 
 
 Within three years after the second occupation of Canada, (1633-36,) 
 the number of Jesuit priests in the province reached fifteen; and every 
 tradition bears testimony to their worth. They had the faults of ascetic 
 superstition (1); but the horrors of a Canadian life in the wilderness 
 were resisted by an invincible passive courage, and a deep internal tran¬ 
 quillity. Away from the amenities of life, away from the opportunities 
 of vain-glory, they became dead to the world, and possessed their souls in 
 unalterable peace. The few., who lived to grow old, though bowed down 
 by the toils of a long mission, still kindled with the fervor of apostolic 
 zeal. The history of their labors is connected with the origin of every 
 celebrated town in the annals of French America ; not a cape was turned, 
 nor a river entered, but a Jesuit led the way.”^ 
 
 The first college in North America, as we have said, was founded by 
 Catholics. Here we have also the authority of Bancroft, who moreover 
 assigns the true cause which led to its establishment, — religious zeal: 
 
 “To confirm the missions, the first measure was the establishment of a 
 college in New France; and the parents of the Marquis de Gamache, 
 pleased with his pious importunity, assented to his entering the order of 
 the Jesuits,'and added from their ample fortunes the means of endowing 
 a seminary for education at Quebec. Its foundation was laid, under 
 ‘ happy auspices, in 1635, just before Champlain passed from among the 
 living, and two years before the emigration of John Harvard, and one 
 year before the general Court of Massachusetts had made provision for a 
 college.^’’'* 
 
 The first charitable institutions on our portion of the American continent 
 were also of Catholic origin : 
 
 “The fires of charity were at the same time enkindled. The dutchess 
 D’ Aiguillon, aided by her uncle, the Cardinal Richelieu, endowed a 
 public hospital dedicated to the Son of God, whose blood was shed in 
 mercy for all mankind. Its doors were opened, not only to the sufferers 
 among the emigrants, but to the maimed, the sick, and the blind, of any 
 of the numerous tribes between the Kennebec and Lake Superior; it 
 relieved misfortune without asking its lineage. From the hospital nuns 
 of Dieppe, three were selected, the youngest but twenty-two, to brave the 
 famine and the rigors of Canada in their patient missions of benevolence.”^ 
 
 This noble example of self devoting zeal found admirers and imitators 
 
 1 Vol. iii, p. 127. 2 Pp. 166-7. 3 P. 120. 
 
 i Ibid. p. 122. 5 P. 126. 
 
 / 
 
Bancroft’s account. 
 
 303 
 
 among the religious ladies of Catholic France: and another charitable 
 institution was the result: 
 
 “ The same religious enthusiasm, inspiring Madame de la Peltier, a young 
 and opulent widow of Alenson, with the aid of a nun of Dieppe and two 
 others from Tours, established the Ursuline convent for the education of 
 girls. As the youthful heroines stepped on the shore at Quebec, (Aug. 
 1, 1639) they stooped to kiss the earth, which they adopted as their 
 mother, and were ready, in case of need, to tinge with their blood. The 
 governor, with the little garrison, received them at the water’s edge ; 
 Hurons and Algonquins, joining in the shouts, filled the air with yells of 
 joy; and the motley group escorted the new comers to the Church where, 
 amidst a general thanksgiving, the Te Deum was chanted. Is it won¬ 
 derful that the natives were touched by a benevolence, which their 
 poverty and squalid misery could not appall ? Their education was also 
 attempted ; and the venerable ash tree still lives, beneath which Mary of 
 the Incarnation, so famed for chastened piety, genius, and good judgment, 
 toiled, though in vain, for the culture of Huron children.”* 
 
 The hearts of the natives were much more capable of being touched by 
 deeds of heroic benevolence, than were those of the Puritans at no remote 
 period. Every body knows how these were touched^ when a branch of 
 this same benevolent order of Ursuline ladies was established in the imme¬ 
 diate vicinity of enlightened Boston. The mouldering ruins of Mount 
 Benedict still stand, a proud monument of their benevolence and burning 
 zeal! Shame on them, for their unmanly and cowardly treatment of 
 harmless and benevolent females ! The very savages, whom their fore¬ 
 fathers so inhumanly butchered, would, if possible, arise from their tombs 
 and blush for them, who have not yet learned to blush ! 
 
 Two years before the establishment of the Ursulines in Quebec, the 
 benevolent Silleri had already created another charitable institution for the 
 civilization of the savages, (A. D. 1637): 
 
 “ Meantime, a colony of the Hurons had been established in the vicinity 
 of Quebec; and the name of Silleri is the monument to the ’philanthropy 
 of its projector. Here savages were to be trained to the faith and the 
 manners of civilization.”^ 
 
 The Hurons were the first tribe o*f Indians to whom the Jesuits carried 
 the light of the gospel. In 1634, Fathers John de Brebeuf and Anthony 
 Daniel joined a party of barefoot Hurons who were returning from Quebec 
 to their own country, situated to the ^ North West of Lake Toronto, and 
 near the shores of Lake Huron. The journey was long and painful; the 
 distance was three hundred leagues, or nine hundred miles ; the way lay 
 through dense and unexplored forests, almost impassable marshes, along 
 the Ottowa river and its waters, and over rugged hills and precipices. 
 Over this difficult country, they had to carry their canoes on their shoulders 
 whenever the Ottowa river and its tributary streams proved unnavigable: 
 
 “ And thus swimming, wading, paddling, or bearing the canoe across 
 the portages, with garments torn, with feet mangled, yet with the breviary 
 safely hung around the neck, and vows, as they advanced, to meet deatli 
 
 1 Vol. iii, p 127. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
304 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 twenty times over, if it were possible, the consecrated envoys made their 
 way, by rivers, lakes, and forests, from Quebec to the heart of the Huron 
 wild(^rness. There they raised the first humble house of the society of 
 Jesus among the Hurons,— the cradle, it was said, of His Church, who 
 dwelt at Bethlehem (^Nazareth?) in a cottage. This little chapel, built by 
 aid of the axe, and consecrated to St. Joseph, where, in the gaze of 
 thronging crowds, vespers and matins began to be chanted, and the sacred 
 bread was consecrated by solemn Mass, amazed the hereditary guardians 
 of the council fires of the Huron tribes. Two new Christian villages, St. 
 Louis and St. Ignatius, bloomed among the Huron forests.”’ 
 
 In another place, the historian thus describes the missionary life among 
 the Hurons: 
 
 “ The life of a missionary on Lake Huron was simple and uniform. The 
 earliest hours, from four to eight, were absorbed in private prayer f the 
 day was given to schools, visits, instructions in the catechism, and a service 
 for proselytes. Sometimes, after the manner of St. Francis Xavier, Brebeuf 
 would walk throucrh the village and its environs, ringing a little bell and 
 inviting the Huron braves and counselors to a conference. There, under 
 the shady forest, the most solemn mysteries of the Catholic faith were 
 subjected to discussion.”^ 
 
 He gives the following very interesting account of the famous Huron 
 Chief, Ahasistari: 
 
 ” Nature had planted in his mind the seeds of religious faith. * Before 
 you came to this country,’ he would say, ‘when I have incurred the 
 greatest perils, and have alone escaped, I have said to myself: some pow¬ 
 erful spirit has the guardianship of my days and he professed his belief 
 in Jesus, as the good genius and protector, whom he had before uncon¬ 
 sciously adored. After trials of his sincerity, he was baptized; and, 
 enlisting a troop of converts, savages like himself, ‘ let us strive,’ he 
 exclaimed, ‘ to make the whole world embrace the faith in Jesus. 
 
 This last incident reminds us of the well known anecdote of the more 
 martial king Clovis, the founder of the French monarchy, who, hearing 
 the history *of our Saviour’s passion read to him while confined to a sick 
 bed, leaped up, and exclaimed : “ Why was I not there with my Franks?” 
 
 The Huron missions continued to flourish for the space of fifteen years: 
 immense numbers of the Indians entered into the Christian fold, and many 
 flourishing Christian villages were organized. The central mission, called 
 the Conception, of which the chief house was St. Mary’s, was situated on 
 the Matchedash, a stream which unites Lakes Toronto and Huron. In one 
 single year, three thousand red men from the different tribes shared the 
 hospitality of the good fathers at this missionary station. At one time, the 
 missionaries had no communication with Quebec or Montreal for the space 
 of three whole years, (1641-1644) during which their clothing fell to 
 pieces, and they suffered grievously for the necessaries of life. Still they 
 persevered with the ardor of apostles, and their nupaber went on constantly 
 increasing. Let us again hear our historian : 
 
 O O 
 
 “Yet the efforts of the Jesuits were not limited even to the Huron race. 
 
 1 Vol. iii, p. 122-3 
 
 2 And Mass, which was celebrated every morning about sunrise, in presence of the neophytes. 
 
 3 P. 125. 4 Ibid. 
 
Bancroft’s account. 
 
 805 
 
 Within thirteen years, th’s remote wilderness was visited by forty-two 
 missionaries, members of the society of Jesus, besides eighteen others, 
 who, if not initiated, were yet chosen men, ready to shed their blood for 
 their faith. Twice or thrice a year, they all assembled at St-. Mary’s ; for 
 the rest of the time, they were scattered through the infidel tribes.” ^ 
 
 t 
 
 We shall hereafter see how this flourishing mission was broken up by 
 an incursion of the fierce Iroquois, the most deadly enemies of the Hurons. 
 We will also have occasion to trace more in detail, from the old Relation 
 alluded to, the wonderful fruits gathered in this first field of Jesuit mission¬ 
 ary labors among the Indians. As this was the first mission, it was also 
 a kind of model for all the others; and as we design, in our second and 
 third papers, to dwell at some length on its history, we will be dispensed 
 from here giving a detailed account of the missions among the other 
 tribes. We will accordingly close this paper with a rapid glance at them, 
 in taking which we will follow Mr. Bancroft’s statements, which we have 
 found to be, in the main, impartial, and, we suppose, accurate. 
 
 From the map published by the Jesuits in Paris, in the year 1660, it 
 appears that their missionaries before this date, “had traced the highway 
 of waters from Lake Erie to Lake Superior, and had gained a glimpse at 
 least of Lake Michigan.” ^ As early as 1638, the plan was formed by them 
 to establish missions among the Algonquins both north and south of Lake 
 Huron, in Michigan, and at Green Bay. But their scanty number and 
 incessant labors prevented them from carrying this purpose immediately 
 into execution. Burning with zeal for the salvation of souls for whom 
 Jesus had died, they ardently prayed the Lord that he would send 
 additional laborers into His vineyard. Their prayer was heard ; and two 
 years later, (1640) the superiors of the mission were enabled to send 
 Fathers Charles Raymbault and Claude Pijart among the Algonquins of 
 tlie North and West.’ 
 
 A year later, FF. Raymbault and Jogues were sent to preach among 
 the Chippewas dwelling at Saulte Sainte Marie, in Michigan, the chief of 
 which tribe had humbly sued for missionaries. This mission was painful, 
 but it promised success : 
 
 “ The chieftains of the Chippewas invited the Jesuits to dwell among 
 them, and hopes were inspired of a permanent mission. A council was 
 held: ‘We will embrace you,’ said they, ‘as brothers; we will derive 
 profit from your words.’”'* “Thus,” the historian says, “did the 
 religious zeal of the French bear the Cross to the banks of the St. Mary 
 and the confines of Lake Superior, and look wistfully towards the homes 
 of the Sioux in the valley of the Mississipi, five years before the New 
 Enoland Elliot had addressed the tribe of Indians that dwelt within six 
 miles of Boston harbor.”® 
 
 The “ New England Elliot,” should not be mentioned on the same page 
 with the very humblest of the Jesuit missionaries. Did he, or did any 
 other Protestant minister, ever make any sacrifices for the spiritual 
 
 
 1 Vol. iii, r. 128. 
 2E2 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
 3 P. 129. 
 
 23 
 
 4 P. 132 
 
 5 P. 131. 
 
306 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 benefit of the Indians ? Did he leave father and mother, and home and 
 wife,” to devote himself, body and soul, for their salvation, amid “Perils 
 of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils in the wilderness, in labors and 
 painfulness, in watching often, in hunger and thirst, in many fastings, in 
 cold and in nakedness?”* Was ever a Protestant minister known to 
 endure all this, or even any considerable portion of it, for the love of 
 Christ, and the conversion of the heathen ?' All these privations, however, 
 the Jesuits cheerfully endured, and many of them much more besides; 
 for many of them gladly laid down their lives in this cause. The first 
 missionaries among the Hurons,—Fathers Daniel, De Brebeuf, and Lalle- 
 mant,— all fell glorious martyrs to their devoted zeal. The “hJew 
 England Elliot ” is not known to have penetrated much farther into the 
 Indian wilderness than six miles from Boston harbor; and he did very little, 
 and succeeded very poorly, even when he had reached this amazing 
 distance from home! 
 
 Father Rayrnbault soon after fell a victim to the climate, and died of 
 consumption at Quebec. (Oct. 1642) His associate. Father Jogues, who 
 with him had first planted the Cross in Michigan, was reserved for a still 
 more disastrous, though glorious fate. Taken prisoner by the fierce 
 Mohawks, he was carried by them to the vicinity of Albany in New York. 
 His brave companion, the Huron chief Ahasistari, could easily have 
 effected his escape, at the time that the Jesuit was captured: but he came 
 ■out from his hiding place, and addressing Father Jogues, said: “My 
 brother, I made oath to thee that I would share thy fortune, whether 
 death or life;,here I am to keep my vow.”** He was condemned to the 
 flames; and “ having received absolution, he met his end with the 
 enthusiasm of a convert, and the pride of the most gallant war chief of 
 his tribe.” ^ 
 
 Father Jogues was made to run the gauntlet at three different Mohawk 
 villages : “ For days and nights, he was abandoned to hunger and every 
 torment which petulant youth could devise. But yet there was conso¬ 
 lation : an ear of Indian corn on the stalk was thrown to the good father, 
 and see! to the broad blade there clung little drops of dew, or of water, 
 enough to baptize two captive neophytes!”^ He had expected death: but 
 the Mohawks, satisfied perhaps with his sufferings, or awed at his 
 sanctity, spared his life, and his liberty was enlarged: 
 
 “ On a hill apart, he carved a long Cross on a tree, and there, in the 
 solitude, meditated the imitation of Christ and soothed his griefs by 
 reflecting that he alone, in that vast region, adored the true God of earth . 
 and heaven. Roaming through the stately forests of the Mohawk valley, 
 he wrote the name of Jesus on the bark of trees, engraved the Cross, and 
 entered into possession of these countries, in the name of God,— often 
 lifting up his voice in a solitary chant. Thus did France bring its banner 
 and its faith to the confines of Albany. The missionary himself was 
 humanely ransomed from captivity by the Dutch, and sailing for France, 
 soon returned to Canada.”® 
 
 1 2 CoriDth. xi, 26, 27. 2 P. 133 3 P. 134. 4 P. 133. P. 13L 
 
Bancroft’s account. 
 
 307 
 
 “ Similar was the fate of Father Bressani. Taking prisoner while on 
 his way to the Hurons; beaten, mangled, mutilated; driven barefoot over 
 rough paths, through briars and thickets ; scourged by a whole village ; 
 burned, tortured, wounded, and scarred,— he was eye-witness to the fate 
 of one of his companions, who was boiled and eaten. Yet some mysterious 
 awe protected his life, and he too was at last humanely rescued by the 
 Dutch.” ' 
 
 These examples are worthy of the brightest days of the Church, when 
 the Pasfans shouted : “ The Christians to the lions ! ” 
 
 The charity of Christ urged the missionaries forward, as it had impelled 
 St. Paul of old. Like him, too, “Forgetting the things that vrere behind, 
 and stretching forth themselves to those which were before, they pursued 
 towards the mark, for the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ 
 Jesus.” ^ Wherever there was an opportunity to gain a soul to Christ, 
 there the Jesuit apostle was to be found, in spite of snows and frosts, and 
 rugged roads, and apprehensionts of savage barbarity. Onward and still 
 onward rolled the sacred tide of missionary enterprise, purifying and 
 regenerating the savage tribes in its course. The missionary never 
 paused in his career : he sought no rest, other than the eternal rest of the 
 saints in heaven. 
 
 The Abenakis of Maine had already received the light of the gospel 
 from the Franciscan missionaries, early in the seventeenth century. One 
 of these. Father Viel, had been drowned, (A. D. 1623) by having his 
 frail canoe dashed to pieces, while “ shooting a rapid on his way from the 
 Hurons.” ^ The Aben'akis, touched with the benevolence of Silleri, 
 applied for Jesuit missionaries in the year 1646 ; 
 
 “ In August, Father Gabriel Dreuillettes, first of Europeans, made the 
 long and painful journey Jrom the St. Lawrence to the sources of the 
 Kennebec, and, descending that stream to its mouth in a bark canoe, 
 continued his roamings on an open sea along the coast. A few miles 
 above the mouth of the Kennebec, the Indians in large numbers 
 gathered about him, building a rude chapel. In the winter, he was their 
 companion in their long excursions in quest of game. Who can tell all the 
 hazards that were encountered ? The sharp rocks in the channel of the 
 rrver were full of perils for the frail canoe ; winter turned the solitudes 
 into a wilderness of snow; the rover, Christian or Pagan, must carry 
 about with him his house, his furniture, and his food. But the Jesuit 
 succeeded in winning the affections of the savages ; and, after a pilgrim¬ 
 age of ten months, an escort of thirty conducted him to Quebec, full of 
 health and joy.” 
 
 Thus the Jesuits had penetrated the present territory of the United 
 States at three different points : at Sault St. Marie in Michigan, among 
 the Abenakis of Maine, and among the Mohawks around Albany in New 
 York. This last tribe was the fiercest and most indomitable of all. We 
 have already seen how cruelly they treated Father Isaac Jogues, and how 
 wonderfully he escaped from their hands. This good man, having 
 speedily returned to the missions in Canada, soon had an opportunity of 
 requiting evil with good. In May, 1646, he was sent on an embassy 
 1 Vol. iii, p. 134 2 PhUippians iii, 13-14. 3 P 137. 4 Ibid. p. 136. 
 
308 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 to the Mohawks, whose language he had learned while in captivity. He 
 was hospitably received, and he had an interview also with the Onondagas, 
 a neighboring tribe. Elated with joy at his success, on his return to 
 Quebec, he made a report, which inspired the hope and induced the 
 resolution of founding a permanent mission in New York. He was 
 selected as superior of the new mission. 
 
 On leaving his brethren, he said : Iho et non redibo ,— “ I will go and 
 will not return.” The treacherous Mohawks made him prisoner ; “ And, 
 against the voice of the other nations, he was condemned by the grand 
 council as an enchanter, who had blighted their harvest. Timid by 
 nature, yet tranquil from zeal, he approached the cabin where the death 
 festival was kept, and, as he entered, received the death blow. His head 
 was hung upon the palisades of the village, his body thrown into the 
 Mohawk river.”' 
 
 The Onondagas and other tribes of*»New York were more sincere. 
 The death of Father Jogues, far from terrifying his brother missionaries, 
 had contributed rather to influence them with a desire to labor in the 
 same field, and if possible, to share his crown of martyrdom. In 1665, 
 Fathers Chaumonot and Dablon, were sent on this mission : 
 
 “ They were hospitably welcomed at Onondaga, the principal village 
 ‘ of the tribe. A general convention was held at their desire ; and, before 
 the multitudinous assembly of the chiefs and the whole people, gathered 
 under the open sky, among the primeval forests, the presents were 
 delivered ; and the Italian Jesuit, with much gesture, after the Italian 
 manner, discoursed so eloquently to the crowd, that it seemed to Dablon 
 as if the word of God had been preached to all the nations of that land. 
 On the next day, the chiefs and others crowded round the Jesuits with 
 their songs of welcome. ‘ Happy land ! * they sang, ‘ happy land ! in 
 which the French are to dwell ; ’ and the chief led the choi'us ; ‘ Glad 
 tidings ! glad tidings ! It is well, that we have spoken together ; it is 
 well, that we have a heavenly message.’ At once a chapel sprang into 
 existence, and by the zeal of the nation was finished in a day. ‘ For 
 marbles and precious stones,’ writes Dablon, ‘we employed only bark; 
 but the pjath to heaven is as open through a roof of bark, as through 
 arched ceilings of silver and gold.’ The savages showed themsehtes 
 susceptible of the excitements of religious ecstacy ; and there, in the 
 heart of New York, the solemn services of the Roman (Catholic) Church, 
 were chanted as securely as in any part of Christendom.” - 
 
 The other tribes of New York also received missionaries, about the 
 same time. Even the fierce Mohawks began to relent, and the Jesuit Le 
 Moyne, “ selecting the banks of their river for his abode, resolved to 
 persevere, in tlie vain hope of infusing into their savage nature the gentler 
 spirit of civilization.”® The other tribes of the five nations, including 
 the Onondagas just mentioned, proved more tractable; 
 
 “ Tlie Cayugas also desired a missionary, and they received the fearless 
 Reno Mesnard. In their village, a chapel was erected, with mats for 
 the tapestry ; and there the pictures of the Saviour, and of the Virgin 
 Mother, were unfolded to the admiring children of the wilderness. The 
 
 1 Vol iii, P. 137-8. 
 
 2 Ibid, p, 143. 
 
 8 Ibid. 
 
Bancroft’s account. 
 
 309 
 
 Oneidas also listened to the missionary; and, early in 1657, Chaumonot, 
 reached the more fertile and more densely peopled land of the Senecas. * * 
 The Jesuit priests published their faith from the Mohawk to the Genessee, 
 Onondaga remaining the central station.’*' 
 
 The missions stretched westward, along Lake Superior, to the waters 
 of the Mississippi. Two young fur tracers, having traveled to the west 
 for five hundred leagues, returned in 1656, attended by a number of 
 savages from the Mississippi valley, who eagerly demanded missionaries for 
 their country lying beyond Lake Superior : 
 
 “Their request was eagerly granted; and Gabriel Dreuillettes, the 
 same wlio carried the Cross through the forests of Maine, and Leonard 
 Gareau, of old a missionary among the Hurons, were selected as the first 
 re^gious envoys to a land of sacrifices, shadows, and deaths. The canoes 
 are launched; the tawny mariners embark; the oars flash and words of 
 joy and triumph mingle with the last adieus. But just below Montreal,, 
 a band of Mohawks, enemies to the Otto was, awaited the convoy; in the 
 aft’ray, Gareau was mortally wounded and the fleet dispersed.”^ 
 
 Undeterred by the sad fate of these first envoys, the Jesuits were 
 still fired with zeal to carry the Cross westward: 
 
 “ If the five nations,” they said, “ can penetrate these regions, to satiate 
 their passion for blood ; if mercantile enterprise can bring furs from the 
 plains of the Sioux ;— why cannot the Cross be borne to their cabins ? * * 
 The zeal of Francis de Laval, the bishop of Quebec, kindled with a 
 desire himself to enter on the mission ; but the lot fell to Rene Mesnard. 
 He was charged to visit Green Bay and Lake Superior, and on a con¬ 
 venient inlet, to establish a residence as a common place of assembly for the 
 surrounding nations. His departure was immediate, (A. D. 1660) and 
 with few preparations; for he trusted — such are his words — ‘in the 
 Providence which feeds the little birds of the desert, and clothes the wild 
 flowers of the forests.’ Every personal motive seemed to retain him at 
 Quebec ; but powerful instincts impelled him to the enterprise. Obedient 
 to his vows, the aged man entered on the path that was red with the blood of 
 his predecessors, and made haste to scatter the seeds of truth through the 
 wilderness, even though the sower cast his seed in weeping. ‘In three or four 
 months,’ he wrote to a friend, ‘you may add me to the memento of deaths.’ 
 
 His presentiment was verified by the event. After having remained 
 with his neophytes about eight months, the venerable man, “ while his 
 attendant was employed in the labor of transporting the canoe, was lost 
 in the forest, and was never more seen. Long afterwards, his cassock 
 and his breviary were kept as amulets among the Sioux.”'* 
 
 Similar was the death of the great Father Marquette, the discoverer of 
 the Mississippi ;—for want of space compels us reluctantly to pass over 
 the labors of his two illustrious companions. Fathers Allouez and 
 Dablon,* as well as our author’s grapliic account of the brilliant missions 
 among the Chippewas, the Sioux, the Illinois, the Potowatamies, the Sacs 
 and the Foxes.® The omission, however, may be, in a great measure, 
 supplied by the reader himself; for what has been said of the other mis¬ 
 sions, may be repeated, with some modifications, of those just mentioned 
 
 1 Vol. iii, P. 144. 2 I* 146. 3 P. 147. 
 
 4 ibid. 6 See Bancroft, pp. 149, seq and 152. seq. 6 P. 150 seq. 
 
310 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 We will now give Mr. Bancroft's account of the death of Marquette. In 
 Company with the French envoy Joliet, he had discovered and descended 
 the Mississippi to a point beyond the mouth of the Arkansas River. On 
 the 17th of July, ,1673, he prepared for his return up the mighty stream. 
 Both in his descent and in his ascent, he had often paused to preach the 
 gospel to the numerous tribes of Indians with whom he happened to 
 meet. On his return, he ascended and explored the Illinois river; and 
 soon arrived at Green Bay, by way of Chicago and Lake Michigan : 
 
 “Joliet returned to Quebec to announce the discovery; * * the unaspir¬ 
 ing Marquette remained to preach the gospel to the Miamis, who dwelt in 
 the north of Illinois, round Chicago. Two years afterwards, (A. D. 
 1675) sailing from Chicago to Mackinaw, he entered a little river in 
 Michigan. Erecting an altar, he said Mass after the rites of the Catholic 
 Church : then, begging the men who conducted his canoe to leave liim 
 alone for a half hour, 
 
 ‘ In the darkling wood, 
 
 Amid the cool and silence, he knelt down, 
 
 And offered to the Mightiest solemn thanks 
 And supplication ’ 
 
 At the end of the half hour, they went to seek him, and he was no more. 
 The good missionary, discoverer of a new world, had fallen asleep on the 
 margin of the stream that bears his name. Near its mouth, the canoemen 
 dug his grave in the sand. Ever after, the forest rangers, if in danger 
 on Lake Michigan, would invoke his name. The people of the west will 
 build his monument.”* 
 
 Such are some of the leading facts and incidents of the earliest Catholic 
 missions among the Indian tribes of the North West. The reader 
 cannot fail to have admired the self-devotion, the disinterestedness, and 
 the unquenchable zeal of the Jesuits. Their missionary labors on our 
 continent forcibly remind us of the heroic disregard of self manifested 
 by Christian missionaries in the first ages of the Church. Their stupen¬ 
 dous success is a conclusive proof, that God was with them, and smiled 
 on their exertions ; and also that they preached the true faith. We may 
 triumphantly ask our dissenting brethren, to produce, from the annals of 
 their missionary enterprise, any thing to compare with the picture drawn 
 of the early Jesuit missions by the Protestant historian, Bancroft. 
 
 The Jesuit missions of the North West, begun under auspices so 
 favorable, were continued with various vicissitudes, from 1634, to the 
 suppression of the order in 1773,—a period of 139 years. Even after 
 this event, some of the Jesuits still remained with their dear Indians, in 
 the character of secular priests.^ After the English government had 
 gained possession of Canada, in 1763, the Jesuits were viewed with 
 suspicion, and they would speedily no doubt have been excluded from the 
 Indian missions under British influence, even if Clement XIV. had not 
 thought proper to suppress the order, ten years later. What cared Eng¬ 
 land for the souls of the poor savages ? Or what nation or tribe did her 
 influence ever convert or civilize ? 
 
 1 P 161-2 
 
 2 As. for instance, the one stationed at Kaskaskias. 
 
XVJ. EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE NORTH' 
 
 WEST. 
 
 SECOND PAPER.-THE HURON MISSION. 
 
 A beautiful spectacle — Reclaiming the savage — Details of the Mission among the Hurous — The 
 nation of Christians — An Indian council — A touching incident—A picture of primitive fervor — 
 Edifying anecdotes — Triumphs of grace— Attack of the Huron villages — Father Daniel— Ilis: 
 glorious martyrdom — His virtues — Another attack by the Iroquois — Heroic conduct of Fathers 
 de Brebeuf and Lallemant—They are made prisoners — Devotedness of their neophytes — The 
 glories of the Huron Mission scattered. 
 
 In our first Paper, we glanced rapidly at the history of the early Jesuit 
 missions among the Indians of the North West, as given by the American 
 historian Bancroft. In the present, we design to furnish some additional 
 details concerning the mission among the Hurons, the first of all in point 
 of time ; having been established, as we have already seen, as early as 
 tlie year 1634. 
 
 The facts which we will give are taken from the old account, or 
 Relation, drawn up by Father Paul Ragueneau, the Superior of the 
 mission, and published at Paris in 1650. This document furnishes an 
 interesting account of the state of the mission in the years 1648 and 
 1649 ; and it gives a thrilling sketch of the horrors attending the des¬ 
 truction of the Christian villages of St. Joseph and of St. Ignatius, by 
 incursions of the Iroquois,' the most deadly enemies of the Hurons and 
 of the Christian name. 
 
 It is indeed a beautiful spectacle, to behold Christian civilization 
 blooming amid the frosty wilderness of Canada, and taking deep root and 
 flourishing in the hearts of the wild children of the forest. It does the 
 Christian heart good, to see the fierce and hitherto indomitable. savage 
 entirely tamed, and meekly bowing his neck to the sweet yoke of Christ; 
 to behold the devouring wolf converted into the gentle lamb of the fold. 
 The annals of Catholic missions alone can present scenes so sublime and 
 so touching. Philosophy may speculate on its inflated theories of high- 
 sounding benevolence ; Protestantism may boast its missionary zeal: 
 but it is only Catholicity which can reclaim the savage, tame his 
 ferocity, and effectually teach him the arts of civilization. 
 
 ♦ ‘‘Relation de ce qui est passe en la Mission des Peres do la Cornpagnie de Jesus 
 aux Hurons, pais de la Nouvelle France, aux annees 1618 et 1649. Par P. Paul 
 Ragueneau, de latnesme Compagnie. A Paris, 16.')0.” 
 
 I Bancroft calls those who destroyed the mission of St. Joseph Moa.4WKs ; (vol. iii, p. 138) but 
 the Relation styles them laoquois. F. 8. 
 
 311 
 
812 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 The missions of Paraguay in South America, and those among the 
 Hurons and other tribes of the North West, contrasted with those which 
 Protestant missionary zeal has attempted among the Indians of North 
 America, clearly prove the truth of these remarks. Wliile the latter 
 have proved, in every instance, a complete failure, the former were 
 eminently successful, and plainly bespoke the divine sanction and assist¬ 
 ance. It is only the Catholic Church, the faithful spouse of Jesus 
 Christ, “ without spot or wrinkle,’’ which can bring forth children for 
 the kingdom of God ; the sects, ever since their divorce, have been 
 doomed to barrenness. What savage tribe, in fact, have Protestant 
 missionaries ever succeeded in converting or civilizing ? On the con¬ 
 trary, we have already seen, on the authority of the Protestant historian 
 Bancroft, what was effected in this way by the Jesuit missionaries in 
 North America. And his statement, honorable as it is to the zeal and 
 labors of the Jesuits, is still very meagre indeed, when compared with 
 the detailed accounts furnished by those who were actors in the scenes 
 which he so summarily describes. This will sufficiently appear from 
 the facts embodied in the present paper. 
 
 Fathers Anthony Daniel and John de Brebeuf were the first missionaries 
 sent among the Hurons, in the year 163.4. We have already seen how 
 much they suffered on tlie long journey of nine hundred miles, from 
 Quebec ’ to the Huron wilderness. After having labored with un¬ 
 tiring zeal, and amidst sufferings and privations of the most appalling 
 character, for the space of about fifteen years, they both sealed their 
 mission with their blood. The first missionaries to the Hurons, they 
 were also the first martyrs. Their blood, however, far from quenching 
 missionary zeal, was, on the contrary, a fertile seed, scattered on the face 
 of the wilderness, from which new champions sprang forth, panting for 
 the crown of martyrdom. The' same heroic spirit which had led 
 Christians to smile on death in the days of Tertullian, at the close of the 
 second century, was manifested by the faithful children of the Catholic 
 Church laboring amid the snows of the Huron wilderness, in the middle 
 of the seventeenth. The power of God was not abridged, nor was his 
 right arm shortened. 
 
 These two venerable pioneers of the Indian missions soon beheld 
 themselves surrounded by a large body of zealous companions, equally 
 devoted, in life and in death, to the good cause. Four new missionaries 
 having arrived in September 1648, the total number laboring in the 
 Huron mission then amounted to eighteen. These were dispersed 
 through eleven diffei’ent stations, eight of Avhich were for the tribes who 
 spoke the Huron tongue, and the three others were among the Algon- 
 quins.^ The four newly arrived apostles were given as assistants tc 
 those whose districts were the most extensive; the greater portion of the 
 missionaries had no companions, save “ the tutelary angels of the tribes*’ 
 
 1 Called Kebkc in the oldest writiugs, and in the iJcZatio/i of 1648—1649. 
 
 2 Relation, p 13. 
 
THE HURON MISSIONS. 
 
 313 
 
 among which they labored.* The condition of the mission is thus 
 described bv Father Raufueneau: 
 
 “ Everywhere tlie progress of the faith has far surpassed our hopes; 
 tlie greater portion of the savages, even those who had been before the 
 most ferocious, liaving become so docile and so pliable to the preaching 
 of the Gospel, as to make it manifest that the angels labored more among 
 them than ourselves. The number of those who received baptism during 
 the past year (1648) is about eighteen hundred; without reckoning a 
 vast multitude baptized by Father Anthony Daniel, on the day of the 
 capture of St. Josepli’s, of whom we have not been able to take any exact 
 account; and not comprising tliose baptized by Fathers John de Brebeuf 
 and Gabriel Lallemaiit at the capture of the villages forming the mission 
 of St. Ignatius. ... It is enough for us that heaven hath kept a good 
 account of these, for, in sooth, these baptisms have served but to enrich 
 the Church triumphant.” ^ 
 
 The Relation then proceeds to state, that no intelligence had yet been 
 received from* a mission established eischt months before amonof a tribe of 
 the Algonquins, dwelling on an island sixty leagues to the w'est. The 
 missionary who was stationed at this distant post, far away from his 
 brethren, had much to endure, and had already no doubt gained many 
 souls to Jesus Christ. This island, situated amidst the waters of Lake 
 Huron, was called by the Indians Ekaentoton; but the Jesuits named it 
 St. Mary's? 
 
 Wherever a mission was orjjanized, there a flourishinar Christian villas^e, 
 and sometimes a cluster of them, sprang up amidst the frowning' wilder¬ 
 ness. The Jesuit missionary was the father of each little Christian 
 community. He lived with his spiritual children, adopted their mode of 
 life, shared their privations, rejoiced with them when they rejoiced, and 
 wept with them when they wept. He became “all to all, to gain all to 
 Christ.” The affections of the Indians were thus won, their hearts were 
 enchained ; they became as docile as little children in the hands of the 
 missionaries, and they renewed in their lives the brilliant examples of 
 virtue set by the primitive Christians. 
 
 The mission of the Conception, of which the principal station was at 
 St. Mary’s, was the oldest of those established among the Hurons. It 
 was the one, too, which set the brightest example of every virtue, and 
 shone as a brilliant luminary in the mid>t of the wilderness, presenting a 
 model for ti e imitation of the neighboring tribes. Says the Relation : 
 
 ” Men, women, and children, made so open a profession of what they 
 all wished to be even unto death, that the surrounding tribes were wont to . 
 call tliem by no other name, than the Nation of Christians. In effect, 
 their chiefs are so ardent in maintaining the faith, and all the families have 
 submitted to its teachings so generally,' that, but very few infidels remain¬ 
 ing among them, the Christians are no longer willing to tolerate any of 
 their ancient customs, which were the remains of infidelity, or which were 
 injurious to morals. In the beginning of the winter (1648-9) these good 
 neophytes convened a general council, to confer together on the best means 
 for strengthening the faitli among them. They came to the conclusion to 
 
 1 RtOation, p y. 2 Ibid p. 18-19. 3 Ibid. p. 20. 
 
 2F 
 
314 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 seek out the Father who has charge of the mission, and to beg him to 
 retrench from their customs whatever was contrary to the faith, and to 
 correct, in those uses which were indifferent, whatever might prove in 
 any wise dangerous; and they pledged themselves to obey him in every 
 tiling, to view him as the bearer of the word of God, and as their first 
 Chief. The best of it is, that they keep their word, and that, on the 
 least doubt which subsequently arose on this subject, their chiefs came 
 themselves to the Father to receive and execute his orders.”* 
 
 Towards the close of the winter, this good resolution was put to the 
 test. Some obstinate infidels among the Hurons, wishing to revive their 
 ancient sorceries and impure remedies for healing the sick, called in some 
 chiefs from the neighboring infidel tribes to aid them with their influence; 
 but these found the faith of the neophytes proof against all their efforts to 
 shake it, and they were compelled to desist from this attempt.^ The fol¬ 
 lowing incident, which we abridge from the Relation,^ will serve to show 
 how unshaken was the constancy of those Huron Christians. 
 
 In one of the public games practised among the Hurons, it was customary 
 for the war-chief to enter the cabins of the village in a kind of fury, and 
 with uplifted tomahawk to destroy the doors and rude furniture, as if 
 attacking an enemy’s camp. In one of these fits of assumed rage, an 
 infidel chief of great credit in the tribe declared that he had been admon¬ 
 ished in a dream to break open the door of the church, and to cut 
 down the tree from the branches of which was hung the bell which called 
 the Christians to morning and evening service. On any other occasion, 
 ^ it would have been deemed an offense against the national usages to thwart 
 the infuriate chief in his purpose; but the menace against the church 
 aroused the zeal of a venerable octogena'rian who had embraced the 
 Christian faith. He fell on his knees, and having made a short prayer, he 
 rushed to the church door, just as the savage chief was raising his 
 ^ tomahawk to demolish its portals ; placed his bald head before the upraised 
 weapon, and exclaimed : “ The stroke of the tomahawk would fall much 
 better upon my’head, than upon a house consecrated to God!” The 
 infidel was lost in amazement: “ Strike,” said the Christian, “ I promise 
 publicly that no vengeance shall be taken for my death ; neither the public 
 nor he who will have dealt me the death-stroke, shall inflict or suffer any 
 penalty for it: but I cannot see with my eyes, that either the sanctity of 
 the house dedicated to the service of God should be profaned, or that the 
 voice which summons us to prayer should be hushed !” The infidel chief 
 was'abashed, and he desisted from his purpose. 
 
 Examples so heroic could not but exercise a powerful influence on the 
 neighboring tribes. The good Father Ragueneau expresses the delight 
 with which his soul overflowed in the following passage : 
 
 “Without doubt tlie angels of heaven have been rejoiced at seeing, that 
 in all the villages of this country the faith is respected, and that Cliristians 
 now glory in that name which was in reproach but a few years ago. For 
 my part, I could never have hoped to see, even after fifty years of labor. 
 
 1 llelatioD, p. 20-21. 
 
 2 Ibi.l p. 22. 
 
 3 Ibid p. 22-24. 
 
THE HURON MISSIONS. 
 
 815 
 
 one tenth part of the piety, of the virtue and sanctity, of which I have 
 been an eye-witness in the visits made to those churches, which have but 
 lately grown up in the bosom of infidelity. It has given me a sensible 
 delight to witness the diligence of Christians, who anticipated the light of 
 the sun to come to the public prayers; and who, though harassed with 
 toil, came again in immense throngs before night to render anew their 
 homages to God : to see the little children emulating the piety of their 
 parents, and accustoming themselves, from the most tender age, to offer 
 up to God their little sufferings, griefs, and labors. Often little girls, while 
 engaged in gathering wood for the fire in the adjoining forests, can find 
 no employment more agreeable than to recite the Rosary, seeking to out¬ 
 strip one another in this exercise of piety. But what has charmed me 
 most, is to see that the sentiments of faith have penetrated so deeply into 
 the hearts of those whom we but lately called barbarians, — and I can 
 say it with entire truth — that divine grace has destroyed, in most of 
 them, the fears, the desires, and the joys inspired heretofore by the 
 feelings of nature.”’ 
 
 The following touching anecdotes will serve still further to illustrate this 
 triumph of divine grace. We condense them from the Relation:'^ 
 
 “ A small child six years old fell dangerously sick in the mission of 
 St. Michael. His mother, seeing the excess of his sufferings, and the 
 approaches of death to her dearly beloved and only child, could not 
 restrain her tears. ‘ My mother,’ exclaimed the child, ‘ why do you weep? 
 Your tears will not restore me to health ; rather let us pray God together, 
 that He would make me happy in heaven.’ After some prayers, the 
 mother said: ‘My son, I must carry you to St. Mary’s, that the French 
 Fathers may restore you to health.’ ‘ Alas! my mother,’ rejoined the 
 little innocent, ‘ I have a fire which burns in my head,—can they extin¬ 
 guish it? I dream no longer of life ; have no more solicitude for me; but 
 I will admonish you of my approaching end, and I will then beg you to 
 carry me to St. Mary’s, for I wish to die there, and to be buried among 
 the good Christians.’ ” 
 
 Some days afterwards, the child admonished the mother that it was time 
 to carry him to St. Mary’s, as his end was approaching. It was a custom 
 of the tribe, that when one was on the eve of death, a multitude assembled 
 to perform the superstitious ceremonies of the country. When the child 
 beheld the gathering throng, he exclaimed; “Alas ! my mother; would 
 you have me sin on the very eve of death ? No, I renounce all these 
 superstitions ; I wish to die like a good Christian.” The Relation closes 
 the account with these words : 
 
 “ This little angel was brought to us, and died in our arms, praying until 
 death, and assuring us that he was going straight to heaven, where he 
 would pray to God for us ; and he even asked his mother to inform him, 
 for which of his relations he should pray most, when he would be with 
 God, and when his prayers would without doubt be heard. He w;as heard; 
 for shortly after his death, one of his uncles who had been among those 
 who had been the most rebellious to the faith in this whole country, as 
 well as one of his aunts, demanded instruction at our hands, and became 
 Christians.” 
 
 Similar to this is another incident of a little girl of five years, who having 
 
 1 Iltlation, p, ‘24, *25. 
 
 2 Ibid p. 26, scq. 
 
816 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 attended morning and evening prayers with great assiduity, and having 
 persevered in this even against the prohibition of her parents, was 
 permitted to receive baptism. Some time afterwards she was taken dan¬ 
 gerously ill. Her infidel parents summoned a medicine man, or juggler, 
 to her bedside, and he began his incantations. The little girl, though 
 very low, had yet strength enough to protest against the superstitious 
 rites. She said: “ I am a Christian ; the devils have no longer power 
 over me ; I do not consent to the sin which you are commiting in consult¬ 
 ing the evil one ; I wish no such remedies ; God alone will heal me.” The 
 parents, awed by this appeal, compelled the juggler to retire. The child 
 on the same day begged to be carried to the church, assuring the 
 bystanders that she would be healed, wliich in fact took place. Her 
 parents were converted and demanded baptism. 
 
 The Relation gives also a touching account of a girl of fifteen, who had 
 been taken prisoner late in the previous winter (1647-8) by a hostile 
 tribe. Though imbued with the faith, she had not yet received baptism. 
 While weeping in her captivity, she fervently prayed that God would 
 preserve her purity, which was greatly endangered, and that he would 
 grant her the grace to return to the station of St. Mary’s, in order tl;at she 
 might receive baptism. Her prayer was heard ; she felt a full assurance 
 that her deliverance was at hand ; she threw herself into the first path 
 with which she met, and, without guide other than her guardian angel, 
 without provisions, without protection, she traveled on foot a rugged 
 journey of 240 miles, and arrived in safety at St. Mary’s, where she 
 received the long sighed for grace of baptism, and became a model of 
 virtue to the neophytes. The Relation concludes this branch of the 
 subject as follows: 
 
 This chapter would be endless, were I to recount all the triumphs of 
 grace among these poor savages, wliich excite our admiration more and 
 more every day, and for which we will bless God forever in heaven, without 
 lassitude or disgust. I cannot, however, omit to mention a sentiment 
 almost universal among a multitude of good Cliristians, who having lost 
 all their property, their children, and whatever they held dear in this 
 world, and being on the point of abandoning their country to escape the 
 cruelty of the Iroquois, their enemies, yet thank God and say: ‘ My God! 
 be thou blessed forever ! I cannot regret these losses, since faiih has 
 tauo'ht me that the love which Thou bearest towards Christians is not for 
 the goods of this earth, but for those of eternity ; I bless Thee m the midst 
 of my losses as cheerfully as I ever did before ; Thou art my Father, and 
 it is enouiih for me to know that Thou lovest me. to make me content with 
 all the evils which may happen.’ But what astonislies me most in all this, 
 is to beliold that these sentiments do not come in tardily, after nature and 
 passion have swayed the first motions of tlie heart; but that grace often 
 anticipates and controls even those first sallies, directing them to lieaven 
 more promptly than to earth. May God be blessed forever for all this !”' 
 
 Such was the happy condition of the Huron missions, which thus 
 rivaled tliose of Paraguay in Soutli America, though on a more reduced 
 
 l Ileliitioti, p. 32, S3. 
 
THE HURON MISSIONS. 
 
 317 
 
 scale. The snow-clad wilderness of the North produced as lovely fruits 
 for heaven, as did the sunny climes of the South; and the same skillful 
 hands cultivated both portions of the vineyard. Nor does the parallel stop 
 here. Both missions were broken up by violence, when at the very height 
 of their prosperity : that of Paraguay by the heartless policy of the Por¬ 
 tuguese court under the administration of the ever infamous Pombal; and 
 that of the Hurons, by instruments scarcely more fierce—the implacable 
 Iroquois. God permitted both catastrophes, in the mysterious and 
 unsearchable ways of His providence; and both peopled heaven with 
 martyrs from among the Indian tribes. 
 
 The Iroquois fell upon the Huron wigwams at two different times : first, 
 on the 4th of July, 1648, when they destroyed the two flourishing frontier 
 Christian villages composing the mission of St. Joseph ; and secondly, on 
 the 16th of March, 1649, when a thousand hostile savages massacred the 
 inhabitants, and scattered the glories of the mission of St. Ignatius. In 
 the former invasion. Father Anthony Daniel fell, the proto-martyr of the 
 Jesuits in North America,' as he had been one of the first pioneers of the 
 Huron mission; in the latter, Father John de Brebeuf and Gabriel Lalle- 
 mant, laid down their lives for the faith, amidst the most excruciating 
 tortures. We will glance rapidly at the history of both these melancholy 
 occurrences, condensing the very detailed account of them given in the 
 Relation already quoted. 
 
 The principal village of the two which composed the mission of St. 
 Joseph, numbered about four hundred families. Almost all the men 
 were absent on the chase, or on a warlike expedition. Father Daniel, 
 who had charge of the mission, was just finishing Mass, and the Chris¬ 
 tians according to custom had filled the church about sunrise, when the 
 alarm was given, and the cry “ To arms” resounded through the village. 
 The Iroquois had stolen upon the town unperceived during the night, 
 and they now burst with their fierce war-whoops upon the inhabitants, 
 thus taken by surprise and unprepared for defense. “ Some flew to the 
 combat, others fled panic-stricken ; Father Daniel throwing himself 
 hastily kmong the thickest of the combatants, where the peril was greatest, 
 encouraged his neophytes to make a noble defense; and . . he spoke in 
 a tone so animated, as to make a deep impression on those hearts which 
 had hitherto proved most rebellious, and to impart to them a Christian 
 spirit.” The crowd of applicants for baptism proved so great, that the 
 Father was constrained by the emergency to steep his handkerchief in 
 water, and to baptize the multitude by aspersion. The combat waxed 
 warmer and warmer ; a multitude of Christians just baptized exchanged 
 an earthly robe of innocence for a heavenly garment of glory : the Hurons 
 were overpowered by superior numbers, and the Iroquois became masters 
 of the place. Father Daniel was entreated to fly, and he could easily have 
 effected his escape. But he recollected that many infirm and old persons 
 had been previously prepared for baptism ; he hastily fle'^ around the 
 cabins of the village, baptizing these, and a multitude of infants; and, 
 2F2 
 
318 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 finding the houses already in flames, he betook himself to the church, 
 wishing to die there near the altar of God. He, found it already full of 
 Christians, or of catechumens who eagerly demanded baptism. He 
 baptized some, gave absolution to others, and exclaimed to the assembled 
 multitude : “ My brethren, we shall to-day be together in heaven!”' 
 
 The Iroquois surround the church with a horrible outcry. Father 
 Daniel cries out, at the top of his voice : “ Fly, my brethren, fly 1 and 
 bear with you your faith even to the last breath ! For my part, I must 
 die here, and here abide, so long as I shall see a soul to gain for heaven ; 
 and dying to save you, my life is to me as nothing: — we shall meet 
 again in heaven ! ” Meantime, while his neophytes are flying in all 
 directions ; this good shepherd goes forth to meet the enemy : tlie fierce 
 war shout is hushed : rage is succeeded by a moment of awful silence; 
 the appearance of the man, his earnest manner, his face all radiant with 
 the light of heaven, had stricken awe into every savage bosom. Kallying, 
 however, after a moment’s hesitancy, they rush upon him with savage 
 cries; a hundred arrows pierce him, and a miisket ball enters his body 
 passing near the heart. Father Daniel falls dead : the shepherd has 
 given his life for his flock, with the divine assurance of finding it anew in 
 heaven. 
 
 Finding that he had fallen, the savages rushed upon him, .tore off his 
 clothing and mangled his body, treating it with every indignity. At 
 length, the church being already in flames, his body was cast into the 
 fire, and the good Father’s sacrifice became a holocaust. He and his 
 beloved church were consumed in the same flames. He had, by striking 
 awe into the savages and riveting their attention on himself, contributed 
 to save the lives of many of his flock, who were thus enabled to escape. 
 
 Thus died Anthony Daniel, the proto-martyr of North America. A 
 native of Dieppe in France, born of wealthy and respectable parents, he 
 had entered at an early age into the society of the Jesuits. Chosen for 
 the Huron mission, he had labored among these people for fourteen 
 years, indefatigable in his zeal, and panting daily for the crown of 
 martyrdom. He was remarkable “ for heroic courage, untiring patience, 
 unalterable meekness, and a charity which could excuse all things, bear 
 with all things, and love every body.. His humility was sincere, his 
 obedience entire, and he was always ready to do everything and to suffer 
 everything. His zeal animated him even unto death, which though sudden, 
 was not unexpected. For he always carried his life in his hands ; and 
 during the nine years that he had been employed in the frontier Christian 
 villages, on a mission which was most exposed to the enemy, he had 
 sighed, with hope and with love, for that death which finally fell to 
 his lot.” ^ 
 
 But two days before his glorious death, he had finished a spiritual 
 retreat at the house of St. Mary’s, and had made a general confession 
 with a view‘to prepare himself for eternity. Inflamed with renewed zeal, 
 
 1 Relation, p. 10-11 2 Relation, p. 13. 
 
THE HURON MISSIONS. 
 
 319 
 
 he would not consent to remain even for a day with his brethren to enjoy 
 a brief repose, but hastened back to his mission, having a sort of instinctive 
 feeling that he was needed there. On the 3rd of July, he preached his 
 last sermon to his dear neophytes, bidding them, with tears in his eyes, 
 to prepare for death ; on the 4th, he fell a martyr, as we have seen. In 
 the words of the Relation: “ He left after him an example of every 
 virtue; the savages, even those who were infidels, cherished so strong 
 an attachment for his memory, as to allow us to say with truth, that he 
 had charmed the hearts of all who had ever known him.’^ * 
 
 We must now turn to another scene of horror and carnage, more 
 dreadful far than the one we have just attempted feebly to describe. 
 Encouraged by their former success, the Iroquois returned early in the 
 spring of the following year— 1649 ; and on the 16th of March, a 
 thousand warriors attacked the Christian village of St. Ignatius at break 
 of day, while the inhabitants were all buried in sleep. They carried the 
 place by assault, put men, women and children to death, and set fire to 
 the cabins. Out of four hundred inhabitants, but three escaped over the 
 snow to carry the alarm to the village of St. Louis, but a league distant! 
 The Iroquois followed up their success, and before sunrise surrounded 
 this village, which was fortified with a strong pine palisade. At their 
 approach, many of the women and children fled to the neighboring towns. 
 About eighty valiant Hurons resolved to defend the place to the last 
 extremity. A desperate conflict ensued ; but after thirty of the invaders 
 had been killed, and a great number wounded, the palisades were forced, 
 and the enemy rushed in, overpowering their feeble adversaries, and 
 carrying everything before them. Being well provided with fire arms, 
 which they had obtained from their neighbors, the Dutch in New York, 
 they were an overmatch for the Hurons, whom »they now butchered 
 almost without resistance. They set fire to the town, and cast into the 
 flames the old, the infirm, the wounded, and such small children as had 
 not been able to effect their escape. From the central missionary station 
 of St. Mary's, but a league distant, the flames were discovered at nine 
 o’clock' in the morning ; and the sad forebodings of the good Fathers who 
 dwelt there were soon confirmed by a messenger who had escaped from 
 the massacre. ^ 
 
 In the village of St. Louis there resided at the time of the assault two 
 Jesuit Fathers, John de Brebeuf and Gabriel Lallemant, who had charge 
 of this, and of four other neighboring villages, which formed but one of 
 the eleven Huron and Algonquin missions before spoken of: 
 
 “Some of the Christians had entreated the Fathers to preserve their 
 lives for the glory of God, which could have been very easily effected, 
 since at the first alarm more than five hundred had escaped with ease to a 
 place of security; but their zeal would not allow them to do this, and the 
 salvation of their flock was dearer to them than the love of life. They 
 employed every moment of their time, as the most precious of their whole 
 
 1 Relation, p. 14 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 8&-6. 
 
820 
 
 EARLY CAT HO I. IC MISSIONS. 
 
 lives ; and during the hottest of the combat, tlieir lieart was all on fire for 
 the salvation of souls. One of them was at the breach baptizing the 
 catechumens; the other was giving absolution to the neophytes; and 
 both were busy in animating the Christians to die in sentiments of piety, 
 which consoled them in the midst of their misfortunes. . . An uncon¬ 
 verted Huron seeing things desperate, spoke of flight: but a Christian, 
 named Stephen Annaotaha, the most distinguished of the whole village 
 for his courage and for his exploits against the enemy, would not hear of 
 it. ‘What V he exclaimed, ‘ shall we abandon these good Fathers, who 
 for our sakes have exposed their own lives ? The love they have for our 
 salvation will be the cause of their death; there is no longer time for them 
 to fly across the snows. Let us then die with them, and in their company 
 we will go to heaven.’ This chief had made a general confession but a 
 few days before, having had a presentiment of the threatened danger, and 
 having said that he wished death to find him ripe for heaven. And in 
 effect, both he and many other Christians displayed so much fervor, that 
 we can never sufficiently bless the ways of God towards His elect, whom 
 His providence watches over with love at every moment, in life and in 
 death. This whole multitude of Christians fell, for the most part, alive 
 into the hands of the enemy, and with them our two Fathers, the pastors 
 of that church. They were not killed immediately ; God reserved for 
 them more glorious crowns.”‘ 
 
 Having taken the two villages of St. Ignatius and St. Louis in one day, 
 the Iroquois dispatched couriers on the same evening to reconnoiter that 
 of St. Mary’s. The council of warriors resolved to attack it the next 
 morning, the 17th of Mdrch ; but on their march, an advanced detach¬ 
 ment of two hundred Iroquois were met by a body of Hurons who had 
 sallied from the village of St. Mary’s ; and, after a severe struggle, the 
 former were forced to retreat, and were pursued till they took shelter 
 within the paliside of the destroyed village of St. Louis. Here the 
 Hurons succeeded in killing many and in making thirty prisoners. Mean¬ 
 time the main body of the Iroquois, having heard of the discomfiture of 
 their brethren, came upon the Hurons in the midst of their victory. Long 
 and fiercely raged the battle within and near the palisade of St. Louis ; but 
 at length, after the conflict had been protracted till late in the night, the 
 Iroquois were again victorious, all the Hurons having been either killed 
 or wounded. But the victory was dearly bought: a hundred Iroquois 
 were among the slain, and their head chief was dangerously wounded.^ 
 
 During the whole night of the 17th, the French at St. Mary’s were 
 under arms, hourly expecting an assault. The Jesuit Fathers were 
 engaged in fervent prayer prostrate before the altar. “ We considered 
 ourselves,” they say in the delation, “as so many victims consecrated to 
 our Lord, who ought to await patiently the hour when we shall be immo¬ 
 lated for His glory, without seeking either to retard or to hasten it.”^ A 
 profound silence prevailed during the whole day of the 18th, which was 
 spent by the Christians in prayer, and by the Iroquois in consultation. 
 On the morning of the 19th, the feast of the great St. Joseph, chief patron 
 of the mission, a sudden panic seized upon the enemy, who fled precipi- 
 
 1 B«latioa, p. 37. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 40, 41. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 42. 
 
THE HURON MISSIONS. 
 
 321 
 
 tately, carrying with them such of their prisoners as were able to travel, 
 and as they had not doomed to immediate death. The dreadful fate of the 
 wounded and of other prisoners, is thus graphically described in the 
 Relation : 
 
 “ As for the other prisoners whom they had doomed to immediate 
 death, they bound them to pine stakes driven into the earth in the difter- 
 ent cabins, to which, in leaving the village, they set fire on all sides: 
 taking delight on their departure at the piteous cries of these poor victims 
 perishing in the midst of the flames,— of infants roasted by the side of 
 their mothers, and of husbands who saw their wifes roasted near them.”' 
 
 Thus were scattered the earthly glories of the Huron missions ! Thus 
 did many of the Huron Christians pass from an earthly to a heavenly 
 habitation. Happy exchange! Heaven peopled from among the wild 
 red men of the wilderness ! Here truly were exhibited scenes worthy of 
 the primitive Church! 
 
 The consequences of the two hostile invasions described above, and the 
 apprehension of similar attacks in future, caused the abandonment of 
 fifteen of the Huron villages;^ the Christians of which were scattered 
 among the neighboring tribes, bearing with them only their faith and 
 their virtues. The Iroquois had robbed them of all else. To increase 
 the calamity, a dreadful famine came on, and the condition of the Hurons 
 who had survived the massacre became deplorable in the extreme.* The 
 Jesuits wept and suflered with them, cheering their drooping spirits with 
 bright visions of paradise. In the midst of all their sufferings, the good 
 Fathers rejoiced at the visible triumphs of grace in the lives of their dear 
 neophytes, to whom they clung in life and in death. 
 
 At first the missionaries had intended to emigrate westward with the 
 remnant of the Hurons, to the distant Island of Ekaentoton or St. Mary's; 
 but the Huron chiefs being averse to removing so far from the bones of 
 their deceased relatives, and having in an eloquent speech of three hours 
 implored the Fathers to make the neighboring Island of St. Joseph’s their 
 centi-al mission, their request was granted, and the purpose of moving 
 farther west was postponed for a time.'* 
 
 In our next paper we will conclude this interesting subject of the 
 Huron missions ; and will present a rapid sketch of the edifying life and 
 glorious death of the great Apostle of the Hurons — the Xavier of'North 
 America— John de Brebeuf. 
 
 1 Relation, p. 43- 2 Ibid. p. 86-7. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid, p. 92, seq. 
 
 24 
 
XVII. EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE 
 
 NORTH WEST. 
 
 THIRD PAPER. — FATHERS DE BREBEUF AND LALLEMANT.* 
 
 Martryrdoin of Fathers de Breheuf and Lallemant — Their remains solemnly interred — Their 
 heroism — Details of their martyrdom — Horrible cruelties — Life of Father Lallemant—Hig 
 reasons for devoting himself to the Indian missions—The Aloysius of the Huron missions-— 
 And the Xavier — Father John de Breheuf — Sketch of his life — Ilis first attempt to found 
 the Huron Mission — His ardent zeal — And spirit of prayer — His love of the cross — He 
 pants for martyrdom—His difficulties and sufferings among the Hurons — He is exposed to 
 imminent danger of his life — His humility — His unceasing labors — His calmness — And noble 
 courage — The results of his zeal —The Apostle of the Hurons. 
 
 In our second Paper we endeavored,to draw a rapid sketch of the rise, pro¬ 
 gress, and disasters of the Huron missions. In the present, we will attempt 
 a biographical notice of the two Fathers, John de Brebeuf and Gabriel 
 Lallemant, whom we left captives in the hands of the implacable Iroquois. 
 And in order to resume the thread of the narrative, we will first speak of 
 their glorious death, or rather martyrdom,—for they voluntarily gave 
 their lives for the love of Christ and the salvation of the neighbor ; — and 
 then, we will furnish a summary account of the life and labors of each.* 
 On the morning after the flight of the Iroquois, the Jesuit Fathers at 
 •St. Mary’s having, through some Huron captives who had escaped, 
 received intelligence of the death of Fathers de Brebeuf and Lallemant, 
 sent one of their number, with seven Frenchmen as an escort, to find and 
 bring back their mortal remains. The messengers, on reaching the spot 
 where the martyrdom of these illustrious missionaries had been consum¬ 
 mated, witnessed a scene which froze their very souls with horror. Every 
 thing betokened the fiendish barbarity of the merciless Iroquois. Having 
 reverently gathered up the mangled remains of the two Fathers, they 
 brought them back to the mission of St. Mary’s, where they were solemnly 
 rinterred on the 21st of March, which fell on a Sunday. At the funeral, 
 all were “ filled with so much consolation and with sentiments of a 
 devotion so tender, that every one ardently desired, rather than feared, a 
 similar death ; and that all would have deemed themselves thrice happy, 
 to have obtained from God the grace of shedding their blood and laying 
 down their lives under similar circumstances. No one could bring himself 
 
 * “ Rehition dc ce qui est passe en la Mission des Peres de la compagnie de Jesus 
 aux Hurons, pais de la Nouvelle France, aux annees 1648 et 1649. Par P. Paul 
 Kaguencau, de la mcsnie Compagnie. A Paris, 1650.” 
 
 1 The Relation devotes two whole Chapters to this part of the subject; from p. 44 to p. 86. 
 
 322 
 
FATHERS DE BREBEUP AND LALLEMANT. 323 
 
 to pray to God for their repose, as if they stood in need of prayer; but 
 all raised their hearts to heaven, where they had no doubt the souls of the 
 departed already were.”* 
 
 From the narrative of some fugitive Huron captives, who had been eye¬ 
 witnesses of all the circumstances attending their death, the following 
 details are gathered. Immediately after their capture, they were both 
 stripped of their clothing, had their finger nails torn out by the roots, and 
 were borne in savage triumph to the village of St. Ignatius, which had 
 been taken on the same morning. On entering its gates, they both received 
 a shower of blows on their shoulders, loins and stomach, — no part of 
 their exposed bodies escaping contumely. Father de Brebeuf, though 
 almost sinking under these cruel blows, and fainting from agony and loss 
 of blood, still lost not courage; but, his eye kindling with fire, he 
 addressed the Christian Hurons who were his fellow captives, in the 
 following language : 
 
 “My children ! Let us lift our eyes to heaven in the midst of our suffer¬ 
 ings ; let us remember that God is a witness of our torments, and that 
 He will soon be our reward exceedingly great. Let us die in this faith, 
 and trust in His goodness for the fulfillment of His promises. I feel more 
 for you than for myself: but bear with courage the few torments which 
 yet remain ; they will all terminate with our lives : the glory which will 
 follow them will have no end ! Echon,” ^ they replied, “our hope shall 
 be in heaven, while our bodies are suffering on earth. Pray to God for 
 us, that He would grant us mercy : we will invoke Him even unto death. 
 
 Some infidel Hurons, who had proved obstinate under the preaching of 
 the missionaries, and who, having been long before taken captive by the 
 Iroquois, had become naturalized among them, were filled with fiendish 
 rage at the noble freedom with which the captive Father spoke. They 
 rushed upon him and Father Lallemant, they cut off the hands of one, 
 transpierced the body of the other with pointed reeds and iron arrow- 
 points ; they applied red-hot tomahawks under their armpits and over 
 their loins; they put a collar around their necks from which were sus¬ 
 pended red-hot tomahawks, so that, whether they stood erect, or bent on 
 either side, their bodies were deeply burnt with the heated iron : in fine 
 they bound round their bodies girdles of bark covered with pitch 
 and rosin, to which they set fire. Thus were the good Jesuits roasted 
 with more cruelty, than had been even St. Ifawrence on his gridiron ! Let 
 us now hear the Relation : 
 
 “ In the midst of his torments. Father Gabriel Lallemant raised his 
 eyes to heaven, joining his hands from time to time, and sending forth 
 sighs to God whom he invoked to his succor. Father John de Brebeuf, 
 with the apparent insensibility of a rock, heedless alike of fire and flame, 
 continued in profound silence, without once venting a sigh or a murmur, 
 which astonished even his executioners : without doubt his heart was then 
 sweetly reposing in the bosom of God ! After a brief space, as if 
 returning to himself he preached to those infidels, and more especially to 
 a number of good Christian captives, who .showed compassion for his 
 
 1 llelacion, p. 52-3. 2 The Huron name of Father de Brebeuf. 3 Relatiou pp. 46-7. 
 
324 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 sufferings. His cruel executioners, indignant at his zeal, in order to 
 prevent his speaking any more of God, struck him on the mouth, cut off 
 his nose, and tore away his lips; but his blood spoke more eloquently 
 than his lips, and his heart not having yet been torn out, his tongue did 
 not fail to aid him in recounting the mercies of God in the midst of his 
 torments, and in animating more than ever his Christian fellow captives. 
 In derision of baptism, which these good Fathers had so charitably 
 administered at the breach and in the hottest of the contest, those barba- 
 rious enemies of the faith bethought themselves of baptizing them with 
 boiling water. More than twice or thrice their whole body was inundated 
 with the scalding element, the infidels accompanying the ablution with 
 heartless jeers : — ‘ We bap'tize you, that you may be happy in heaven ; 
 for without baptism no one can be saved Others said, mocking: 
 ‘ We treat you as friends, for we will be the cause of your greater happi¬ 
 ness in heaven : thank us for our good offices, for the more you suffer, the 
 more God will reward you.’* 
 
 “ The more their torments were redoubled, the more did the Fathers 
 pray, that their sins might not be the cause of the reprobation of these 
 blinded infidels, whom they forgave with all their hearts. . . . When 
 they were attached to the stakes where they endured all these tortures, 
 and where they were to die, they fell on their knees, embraced the wood 
 with joy, and kissed it fervently as the cherished object of their sighs and 
 prayers, and as a certain and last pledge of their eternal salvation. They 
 continued in prayer much longer than pleased their barbarous tormentors. 
 These plucked out the eyes of Father Gabriel Lallernant, and applied red- 
 hot coals to the orifices from which they had been torn. Their sufferings 
 did not take place at the same time. Father John de Brebeuf suffered 
 for about three hours, and expired at 4 o’clock in the evening of the IGth 
 of March, the same day on which the village of St. Ignatius had been 
 captured. Father Gabriel Lallernant suffered much longer: from six 
 o’clock of that evening, until about nine o’clock of the following day, the* 
 17tii of March. Before their death the hearts of both were torn out, an 
 incision having been made for this purpose under the breast; and those 
 barbarians drank their blood while it was still warm . . . While they were 
 yet living, pieces of flesh were cut off from their thighs, arms, and legs, 
 which were roasted and eaten before their eyes ! Their bodies had been 
 gashed all over, and, to increase their torments, red-hot tomahawks were 
 run along the deep incisions. Father John de Brebeuf had been already 
 scalped ; his feet had been cut off, and his thighs denuded to the very 
 bone, and one of his cheeks had been divided by a stroke of the tomahawk. 
 Father Gabriel Lallernant had also received a stroke of the murderous 
 weapon on his left ear, and the instrument had sunk deep into his skull, 
 laying bare the brain : we could find no part of his body, from the head to 
 the foot, which had not been roasted, even while he was living. Their 
 very tongues were roasted, burning fire-brands and bunches of bark 
 having been repeatedly thrust into their mouths, to prevent them from 
 invoking, while dying, the name and succor of Him, for whose love they 
 were enduring all these torments.”** 
 
 But we sicken at these accumulated horrors: we will drop the veil 
 over them, and with it, a tear over the horrible blindness and perverseness 
 of human nature when left to its own impulses, without the light of 
 grace, and the softening influence of Christian civilization. We will now 
 
 1 Rulation, p. 48 
 
 2 Ibid, p. 50 -51. 
 
FATHERS DE BREBEUF AND LALLEMANT. 325 
 
 endeavor to draw a rapid sketch of the lives of the two remarkable men, 
 whose glorious martyrdom we have described. 
 
 Father Lallemaiit was in his 39th year, and he had been but six months 
 engaged in the Indian missions ; yet was he destined to bear off one of 
 the first crowns. For several years he had begged with tears in his eyes 
 to be sent on this mission, notwithstanding that his constitution was very 
 weak and his health extremely delicate. He could hope to have little 
 .other bodily strength, than that which the grace of God might impart. 
 In a writing' which he drew at the desire of his superiors, assigning the 
 reasons why he petitioned to be sent on the Indian mission, are found 
 the following edifying passages : 
 
 I wish to labor on those missions: 1st, to discharge the obligations 
 which I owe to Thee, 0 my God ! For if Thou bast abandoned pleasure, 
 honors,'health, joy, and life itself, to save me a miserable sinner, is it more 
 than reasonable that I should abandon all things after Thy example, for the 
 salvation of those whom Thou esteemest Thine, who have cost Thee Thy 
 blood, whom Thou hast loved even unto death, and of whom Thou hast 
 said : “ Whatever you have done to one of these least ones, you have done 
 it to me ? ’ . . . 2. Since I have been so miserable as to have offended Thy 
 goodness, 0 my Jesus! Is it not just that I should atone for my sins byextra- 
 ordinaj y sufferings ; and thus should walk before Thy face, all the rest of my 
 life, with a contrite and humble heart in the midst of sufferings, which thou 
 didst first endure for me. ■ 3d. Tam indebted to my relations, to my mother 
 and to my brothers, and I ought to draw down upon them the eflfects of Thy 
 mercy. My God, permit not that any one of this family, for which Thou 
 hast shown so much love, should ever be lost in Thy sight, or should ever 
 belong to the number of those who will blaspheme Thee eternally. Let 
 me be a victim for them ; ‘ for I am prepared for stripes, — here burn, 
 here cut, that thou mayst spare eternally.’ 4. Yes, my Jesus 1 and my 
 love 1 Thy blood, which was shed also for the barbarians, should be 
 efficaciously applied to their salvation, and it is for this reason, that I 
 wish to co-operate with Thy grace, and to be immolated for them.” ^ 
 
 Having left the world at a tender age, and abandoned the prospects of 
 worldly promotion which tvere open to his wealthy and respectable family, 
 he seems to have preserved unsullied his baptismal innocence. Having 
 become a Jesuit, he walked so uprightly before God, as everywhere to 
 diflfuse around him the sweet odor of Christ. Diffident by nature, and 
 timid in conscience, he carefully fled from even the shadow of sin ; yet he 
 was ever calm, and he did not indulg^in scruples. In France he had gone 
 through a regular course of studies with great success, and he was a pro¬ 
 ficient in the languages and the sciences. During the few months that he 
 labored among the Hurons, he became a little child with them, selecting 
 the lowliest of them for his teachers in the difficult Huron language, in 
 which he had already made great proficiency. Born te honor and dis¬ 
 tinction, he loved only the Cross, and he clung to the Cross even unto 
 death. Revered as the angel of the Huron mission, he was wholly uncon¬ 
 scious of his own merits, and looked on himself as the last of his brethren. 
 Mr. Bancroft appropriately styles him : ‘‘ the gentle Lallemant.” He was 
 
 1 Found after his death, among his papers. 
 20 
 
 2 lUlation, p. 54-5 
 
i 
 
 32G EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 born at Paris, on the 31st of October, 1610 ; and he died a martyr at the 
 stake, on the 17th of March, 1649, in the 39th year of his age. Truly 
 his prayer was heard: he “ was immolated for the poor Indians !” Only 
 Catholicity can point to examples so bright and so heroic ! 
 
 If Father Lallemant was the Aloysius of the Huron mission. Father 
 John de Brebeuf was its Xavier. The former was a lamb; the latter a 
 lion: yet each had many qualities distinctive of the other; and the lion 
 and the lamb were immolated together, for the love of God and of the 
 neighbor. Yet did the lamb die much more slowly than tlie lion ! 
 
 Father John de Brebeuf was sent from France on the Canadian mission 
 in the year 1625 by Father Peter Caton, whose discrimination had marked 
 him out as a suitable instrument for convertinfj the savage tribes of New 
 France. As a kind of apprenticeship to his future labors, he spent the 
 winter of 1625-6, wandering in the woods and mountains among the 
 savages in the neighborhood of Quebec. During this time, it is impos¬ 
 sible to tell how much he suffered : hunger, thirst, and cold, were the 
 constant attendants of the wild savage life. In the spring of 1626, he 
 penetrated into the Huron wilderness, alone and on foot; the first white 
 man perhaps, certainly the first missionary, who ever entered its unexplored 
 recesses. He soon mastered the difficult Huron dialect, adapted himself 
 in all things to the manners and habits of the Huron tribe, and succeeded 
 so well in making himself “ all to all, in order to gain all to Jesus Christ,** 
 that he became the idol of the savages.' 
 
 In 1629, the English gained a temporary possession of Canada; and, 
 with the anti-religious policy which has almost invariably marked that 
 rapacious government, the Jesuits were forbidden any longer to prosecute 
 their missions among the Indians. The Huron mission, commenced under 
 auspices so favorable, was thus suddenly broken up, and Father de Brebeuf 
 was compelled to return to Europe. France having however soon regained 
 possession of Canada, Father de Brebeuf returned to it in 1633; and in 
 the spring of the following year, he revisited his beloved Hurons in com¬ 
 pany with Father Daniel — as we have already seen. The Hurons received 
 their old Father Echon — so they called him — with open arms. He now 
 recommenced among them those herculean labors, which were to close only 
 with his death, fifteen years later. He seemed to be in every respect 
 adapted, both by nature and by grace, to the arduous undertaking upon 
 which he had embarked. Possessed of every virtue in a heroic degree, 
 burning with zeal for the salvation of souls, active and indefatigable, 
 moulding his ardent temperament to every emergency, he was withal 
 emphatically a man of prayer, and he walked always with God. Others 
 marked his manifold virtues ; he seemed wholly unconscious of them, and 
 esteemed himself the last of men. 
 
 Communion with God by constant prayer was his chief delight, as well 
 as the main source of his strength. Tiie longer he lived, the more he 
 
 1 Relation, p. 59. Mr. Bancroft says nothing of this first visit of Father de Brebeuf, nor of hla 
 Bubse(iuent expulsion by the English Oovernnient. 
 
FATHERS DE BREBEUF AND LALLEMANT. 327 
 
 •i' 
 
 became addicted to prayer. Often absorbed in God for liours together, he 
 was detached from the senses, and seemed already to be in advance a 
 citizen of heaven. In prayer, he was frequently favored by God with extia- 
 ordinary consolations and graces. “ He superabounded with joy in all his 
 tribulations,” like the great apostle of the Gentiles. By order of his 
 superiors, he committed to writing an account of many of the wonderful 
 things which God was pleased to manifest to him in prayer. And though 
 the cold skeptic may smile while reading the simple recital of these wonders, 
 yet to the man of faith their perusal cannot but afford matter of consolation 
 and edification.‘ 
 
 Yet his devotions, however much he cherished them, did not interfere 
 with the active and laborious duties of the mission. Thi’ouirliout the 
 whole day, he might be seen moving about among the Hurons, consoling 
 the sick, baptizing the infants and the dying, breathing consolation into 
 the hearts of the afflicted, refuting gainsayers with unalterable patience 
 and meekness, and everywhere diffusing around him the sweet odor of 
 Clirist. In the midst of all these multiplied labors, the unchangeable 
 serenity of his countenance bespoke the undisturbed tranquillity of his 
 mind and its entire recollection in God. Always and everywhere he 
 ^ appealed the envoy of Him, “ who went about doing good and healing 
 all.” His example captivated every heart, and his words breathed an 
 unction which softened the most obdurate. 
 
 When the labors of the day were over, when all was hushed into 
 tranquillity in the village, he delighted to spend whole hours in prayer, 
 and often protracted his* watchings until late in the night. . When his 
 strength was at length exhausted, and sleep overcame his wearied frame, 
 he laid himself down on the bare earth, without divesting himself of his 
 clothing, and took a brief repose, with no other pillow than a piece of 
 wood. Long before the dawn, and while all were yet buried in sleep, he 
 was again at his devotions, which continued for hours. From private 
 prayer, he ascended the holy altar, and with a countenance all radiant 
 with light, and with tears often trickling down his cheeks, he offered up 
 the holy Victim of expiation. After this, he recited morning prayers 
 with his neophytes who thronged the church; and then went through the 
 same round of teaching, preaching, visitation of the villagers, and of 
 incessant duties, as on the previous day.^ 
 
 For fifteen years, he continued this manner of life. Instead of relaxing 
 in fervor, he increased in it from day to day. Each day he became 
 more inflamed with zeal, and more animated with an ardent longing after 
 suffering. The Cross v/as the great source of his consolation and of his 
 streno-th. To become like Christ; with Him “to be nailed to the 
 
 O 
 
 Cross; ” to bear on his body the marks of His passion, was the great 
 aspiration of his soul. Sufferings were his daily bread : he banqueted 
 only at tlie foot of the Cross ; he gloried in nothing else. This, in fact, 
 
 1 The Relation details many of these wonderful visitations, p. 60 feq. Bancroft refers to them with' 
 a lurting sneer. (II [. 124) 
 
 2 JveUtiou, p. 69. * 
 
828 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 was liis ruling sentiment, strong, as we have seen, even in death. 
 Nothing is more frequently repeated in his Memoirs, written by himself, 
 than the desire to be immolated for Christ. For eight or ten days 
 together, he would feel a “ vehement impulse to die for Christ.” ' 
 Under the influence of this strong feeling, he made a solemn vow, in the 
 presence of the blessed Trinity and of the whole court of heaven, not to 
 decline the crown of martyrdom, if God in His mercy, as he humbly 
 prayed, would grant him this great and priceless favor.^ Having tluis 
 made himself a living victim of divine love, he looked upon himself ever 
 after as the soldier of the Cross, and he vowed never to desert this 
 glorious standard. He felt a presentiment that he should seal his fliith 
 with his blood; he incessantly prayed and panted for this glorious 
 crown : and heaven heard his vows and granted his prayers : 
 
 “ This good Father felt himself so strongly moved to advance the glory 
 of God, and to have only this in view, that eleven years before his death, 
 he bound himself by vow, to do and to suffer everything during the 
 remainder of his life, which he should think would conduce to the 
 greater glory of God : a vow wliich he daily renewed at the altar at the 
 moment of receiving the holy Sacrament.” ^ 
 
 This and the vow recorded above he faithfully kept to the day of his 
 death. His sufferings and labors are almost incredible. Only the 
 strength of God, which he received in prayer, could have enabled him to 
 endure them all. Yet he never faltered for a moment: his sacrifice was 
 as clieerful, as it was entire and abiding : 
 
 “In the ardor of his zeal he frequently offered himself up to God, to 
 endure all the martyrdoms of the world for the conversion of this people. 
 Sometime before his death, he wrote as follows : ‘ 0 my God 1 why art 
 Thou not known ! Why is not tlds barbarous country converted to Thee 1 
 Why is not sin abolished ! Why art Thou not loved 1 Yes, 0 my God 1 
 If all the torments which captives can endure in this country, amidst all 
 the cruelty of suffering, should fall to my lot, I offer up myself to endure 
 them all alone with my whole heart ? ’ A little later he said : ‘ For two 
 successive days I have felt a great desire of martyrdom, and a wish to 
 endure all the torments which the martyrs have ever endured.’ ” * 
 
 ■ The conversion of the Hurons was not effected without long and painful 
 labors, and many sufferings on the part of the missionaries. The seed 
 was sown in weeping, which was to bring forth fruit in rejoicing. Many 
 of the savages clung with obstinacy to the superstition of their forefathers. 
 Irritated by the Father’s signal success, these often conspired his death, 
 and endeavored to stir up the whole tribe against him. If any misfortune 
 befell the Hurons — if they were unsuccessful in the chase, or sulfered 
 from famine or sickness — the missionaries, and especially JSchon, had 
 brought it all about.^ In 1637, a contagious malady prevailing in the 
 Huron encampments, the maddening shout rang through the cabins : 
 “ Death to the Jesuits ! death to the Jesuits ! ” ® Amidst this outcry and 
 tumult. Father de Brebeuf moved about amongst the throng as calmly as if 
 
 1 “ Sentio me vehementer iinpelli ad morieiiJum pro Christo.” , 
 
 2 Relation, p. 6o-4. 3 Ibid 4 Ihid^ p. SI. 5 Ibid, p, G6 
 
 6 Ibid, p 67 
 
FATHERS DE BREBEUF AND LALLEMANT. 829 
 
 nothing had happened. Providence threw a shield of protection around 
 his person : his hour had not yet come. 
 
 On one occasion, a popular tumult, stimulated by the chiefs, stirred up 
 the whole village of St. Joseph against the missionaries. Father de Brebeuf 
 and some of his brethren were severely beaten, and the infidels threatened 
 to burn them at the stake. Overawed however by their unalterable 
 meekness and calmness in the midst of insult, the persecutors desisted 
 from their fiendish purpose. In the evening, when all was still, the good 
 Father poured forth his soul in prayer, thanked God for the privilege of 
 having suffered contumely for His sake, and was refreshed with one of those 
 extraordinary communications of heaven, the light of which often broke 
 with dazzling lustre, through the opening cloud of faith, on his troubled 
 spirit.* 
 
 While he was laboring among the savages of the Neutre tribe, in 1640, 
 a Huron chief, sent by his infidel enemies among the Hurons, arrived 
 among the Neutres, the bearer of an embassy from his tribe. The war 
 council was convened, and the envoy offered a present of nine tomahawks, 
 on condition that they would murder Echon, in such a manner that the 
 responsibility of the deed should not rest with the Hurons. The wicked 
 proposition was discussed during the whole night; but at length the offer 
 w'as declined, and the disappointed emissary returned to his tribe.^ 
 
 Amidst all these perils, the spirit of the good Father remained 
 untroubled, because it reposed quietly in the bosom of God. The more 
 he suffered, the more warmly did the love of God glow in his heart. 
 “ Often was he, while in prayer, detached from his senses, wrapped in 
 God, and ravished with the charms of the divine beauty: sometimes his 
 heart was transported to God with extatic raptures of love. But above 
 all, he cherished a tender love for the sacred person of Jesus Christ, and 
 especially for Jesus suffering on the Cross. Often he felt this love, like a 
 burning fire, which having inflamed his heart, went cfti increasing in 
 intensity each day, gradually consuming in him the impurities of nature, 
 in order to cause the spirit of grace and the adorable spirit of Jesus Christ 
 to reign alone in his soul. At the feast of Pentecost, in the year 1640, 
 being engaged in prayer at night, in presence of the most holy Sacramentj 
 he beheld himself in a moment invested, as it were, with a great fire, 
 which burned every thing around him without consuming any thing; and 
 as long as those flames continued, he felt himself interiorly burning with 
 a love of God more ardent than he had yet experienced.”* 
 
 Like all the saints, he cherished- a most tender love and devotion for 
 the immaculate Mother of God ; and he ascribed many of the extraor¬ 
 dinary graces he received to her potent intercession. The vision of her 
 heavenly beauty cheered him in the midst of tribulation, and shed a light 
 on his path amid difficulties and trials; as the star safely guides the 
 mariner at night among the stormy billows. His ardent love for Jesus 
 suffering was naturally blended with a love tor His mother, who stood at 
 
 1 Relation, p. 78. 2 Ibid. p. 68. 3 Ibid. 
 
 2G2 
 
330 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 the foot of the Cross, and, with her Son, drank the bitter chalice. He 
 likewise held daily and sweet converse with the saints and martyrs of the 
 heavenly court; and, while he was charmed with their virtues, he was 
 strongly stimulated to emulate their example, and was powerfully aided by 
 their prayers; which “like odors from golden vials,”' ascend constantly 
 before the throne of the Lamb. He felt, in all its length and breadth, and 
 surpassing beauty and sublimity, the sentiment embodied in the article of 
 the Apostle’s Creed — the Communion of Saints.'* 
 
 Though thus highly favored by heaven, he was as humble as a child, 
 and as docile as a lamb. To his brethren he exhibited a rare example of 
 perfect obedience to the rules of the society, and to the will of his 
 superiors. He had no will of his own ; he distrusted his own lights ; he 
 cheerfully followed the direction of others. In 1631, he wrote as follows: 
 
 “ I feel that I have no talent for anything, recognizing in myself only 
 an inclination to obey others. I believe that I am only fit to be a porter, 
 to clean out the rooms of my brethren, and to serve in the kitchen. I 
 mean to conduct myself in the Society as if I were a beggar, admitted into 
 the Society, by sufferance, and I will receive every thing that is granted 
 me, as a particular favor.”^ 
 
 This was written, it will be remembered, after he had returned to France 
 the first time, and before his second mission to the Hurons. So great was 
 his humility, that on entering the Society, he petitioned to be admitted as 
 a mere lay brother : 
 
 “ And again before he made his vows, he renewed the request, thinking 
 himself unworthy of the priesthood, and fit only for the most menial 
 offices . . . Yet was he capable of the greatest things. And when he 
 was made superior of the Huron mission, and had many others under his 
 charge, every one admired his skill in the management of affairs, his 
 sweetness which gained all hearts, his heroic courage in every undertak¬ 
 ing, his long suffering in awaiting the moments of God’s good pleasure, 
 his patience in enduring every thing, and his zeal in undertaking what¬ 
 soever might promote God’s glory. His humility inclined him to embrace 
 with love, with joy, and even with natural relish, whatever was most lowly 
 and painful: if on a journey, he carried the heaviest burdens ; if traveling 
 in canoes, he rowed from morning till night; it was he who threw liimself 
 first into the water, and was the last to leave it, notwithstanding the rigor 
 of the cold and the ice; his naked limbs were all red with the cold, and 
 his whole body was transpierced with it. He was the first up in the 
 morning to make a fire and prepare breakfast, and he was the last to retire, 
 finishing his prayers and'devotions after the others had gone to repose.” 
 
 “ However harassed he might be, what fatigue soever he might have 
 endured, over roads that would fill the stoutest hearts with horror, and 
 cause them to lose courage ; after all the labors of the day, and sometimes 
 of thirty days in succession, without repose, without refieshment, without 
 relaxation of any kind, often even not liaving been able during the whole 
 time to make one meal at his leisure ; he yet found time to acquit liimself 
 of all the duties demanded by tlie rules, . . . however protracted had been 
 his ordinary devotions, or however liarassing Ids ceaseless occupations. 
 He sometimes said, ‘ that God liad given us the day to toil for the 
 neighbor, and the night to converse with Himself.’ And what is most 
 
 1 Apocalypse v. 8. 
 
 2 Relation, p. 70-1. 
 
 8 Ibid. p. 78. 
 
FATHERS DE BREBEUF AND LALLEMANT. 331 
 
 remarkable is, that in all the labors he thus took upon himself, he did 
 every thing so quietly and so dexterously, that one would have believed 
 that he but acted in accordance with his natural inclination. ‘ I am but 
 an ox,’ he was wont to say, alluding to the meaning of his name in 
 French, ‘ I am fit for nothing but carrying burdens,’ ” ‘ 
 
 *‘To the continual sufferings which were inseparable from his employment 
 in the missions, and in his frequent journeying through the snow: and to 
 those labors which charity caused him to embrace, often above his strength, 
 but never above his courage; he added a number of voluntary mortifications 
 — of inflictions of the discipline every day, and often twice in the day, of 
 frequent fasts, of hair shirts, of girdles around his body armed with iron 
 points, of watchings which wei-e protracted far into the night. And after 
 all, his heart was not yet satiated with sufferings, and he believed that 
 what he had hitherto endured was as nothinaf.^ 
 
 “ His meekness was the virtue which seemed to transcend all the others: 
 it was proof against every trial. For twelve years that I have known him,” 
 writes Father Raguenau, “ that I have seen him alternately superior, 
 inferior, and on an equality with others ; sometimes engaged in temporal 
 affairs, sometimes in missionary toils and labors ; dealing with the savages, 
 whether Christians, infidels, or enemies; in the midst of sufferings, of 
 persecution, and of calumny: I never once saw him either in anger, or 
 even manifesting the slightest indication of displeasure. Occasionally even, 
 some persons tried to pique him on purpose, and to surprise him in those 
 things to which they thought his sensibility would be the most alive ; but 
 always his eye would be benign, his words full of sweetness, and his heart 
 in an unalterable calm.^ 
 
 “ His generous courage was inspired by his distrust of his own strength 
 on the one hand, and his unshaken confidence in God, on the other. He 
 sought in all things to be entirely in conformity with the holy will of God. 
 Having been one day asked, ‘ whether, if taken by the Iroquois, he would 
 not feel a great repugnance to be stripped naked ?’ ‘ No,’ he replied, ‘for 
 
 this would be the will of God, and I would not think of myself, but only 
 of Him.’ On being asked, ‘ whether he would not have a lively horror of 
 beifig burnt alive ?’ ‘ I would dread it,’ he replied, ‘ were I to look only 
 
 to mv own weakness; for the sting of a fly would, in this case, cause me 
 to be impatient; but I trust that God will assist me at all times, and aided 
 by His gi-ace, I fear not the most frightful torments of the fire, more than 
 I would the sting of a fly.’'* 
 
 “His death crowned his life, and his perseverance was the seal of his 
 sanctity. He died at the age of 56 years. He was born on the 25th of 
 MarclC the feast of the Annunciation of Our Lady, of respectable parents, 
 in the Diocese of Bayeux. He entered into our Society in the year 1617, 
 
 on the 5th day of October.His martyrdom was accomplished on 
 
 the 16th day of March, 1649.”® 
 
 Such is an imperfect outline of the life, virtues, and glorious death of 
 that most extraordinary man,—John do Brebeuf. He died just one 
 hundred and thirty-two years after the commencement of the reformation, 
 so called. It is more than doubtful, whether, during all this time, the 
 Protestant churches had produced, or whether they have ever since pro¬ 
 duced, one such man as he was. And yet great and extraordinary as he 
 certainly was, he was still but one of a mighty band of Catholic heroes. 
 Imbued with a similar spirit, and willing, all of them, to die for Christ! 
 
 1 Relation, p. 74, 75. 2 Ibid p. 76. 3 Ibid. p. 77-8. 4 Ibid p. 81-2. 5 Ibid. p. 85-6. 
 
332 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC MISSIONS. 
 
 Wlien he first visited the Huron tribes, in 1626, there was not found, 
 in all tnat unexplored and snow-clad wilderness, one savage who invoked 
 the name of the true God. At his death, he beheld gathered around him, 
 as an encircling crown, no less than seven thousand children of the 
 forest, wiiom he and his brethren had baptized.' He thus beheld the Cross 
 of Jesus, which he so dearly loved, unfurled as a banner of triumph, in a 
 place where, since the creation of the world, no true worshiper of God had 
 been found! The impure superstitions of paganism had melted away 
 before the light of his preaching, as the mists before the rising sun. The 
 Christian villages of the Hurons were made to vie with those established 
 by Catholic missionaries on the sunny plains of Paraguay. 
 
 He was, in the hands of God, the main instrument for effecting all this 
 incalculable good. His prayers were heard, his watchings and sufferings 
 were blessed; the Hurons were converted and reclaimed from barbarism. 
 His glorious death crowned all his previous labors. He died at his post, 
 like a faithful soldier, and in the manner for which he had so long sighed 
 and so ardently pi-ayed, day and night, for years! He richly merits the 
 title which his brethren and cotemporaries gave him : the Apostle of the 
 Hurons. 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 58. 
 
XVIII. WEBSTER’S BUNKER HILL SPEECH * 
 
 RELATIVE TREATMENT OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES BY THE ENGLISH 
 
 AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 
 
 Mr. Webster aa an orator—Compared with Preston, Calhoun, and Clay—Mr. Webster’s omissions—His 
 drift—A sound principle—But iuconclusive reasoning—Different policy adopted by JKnglish and 
 Spanish colonists—“The Anglo Saxon blood'’—A parallel case—Cause of aversion to Spain—The 
 reformation of Luther—Its influence on liberty—“ The middle class”—Luther and the peasants— 
 Protestant opinions—Religious element in Spanish colonization—Irving’s testimony—Portuguese 
 colonists—Catholic and Protestant navigators—Who introduced slavery?—Alleged cruelties of the 
 Spaniards—Las Casas—Cruelties practised by the Puritans—Their treatment of the Aborigines—The 
 Pokanokets—Shrewd bargaining—King Philip—The Narragansetts—Their extermination—The 
 Pequods—“ The godly Stone”—A horribleconttagration-Settling accounts—“A dark shade on the 
 soil of Massachusetts.” 
 
 Mr. Webster’s Bunker Hill speech is emphatically a great oration. It 
 bears the impress of his mighty mind, even in what we must consider the 
 meagre and imperfect report of it in the newspapers. It contains passages 
 worthy of the palmiest days of the great American orator. What, for 
 instance, could excel, in simplicity, beauty, and strength, his character of 
 Washington ? Or what could surpass, in stirring interest, his appeal to 
 the moral feelings of his countrymen, in the peroration ? 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding our admiration of Mr. Webster’s talents, we do 
 not precisely place him at the head of the list of American orators. He 
 wants the pathos of Preston, the electric rapidity of Calhoun, and the 
 versatile graces and manifold excellencies of Clay. But in massive 
 volume of thought, in depth and closeness of reasoning, and in the 
 eloquence of the head, he is scarcely equaled, certainly not surpassed, by 
 any. This is his forte, and it manifests itself on all occasions, whether he 
 is called on to defend the Union and the constitution, or to vindicate his 
 own state of Massachusetts. With him the flowers of rhetoric and appeals 
 to feeling are but secondary things; he uses them with considerable effect, 
 when they come in his way, but he would not move one step from his 
 path, to cull all the flowers of a whole parterre. 
 
 These remarks are intended to apply at least as much to the manner, as 
 to the matter of his Bunker Hill speech. This contains much that we 
 admire, but much also to which a love of truth compels us to object. On 
 the occasion of inaugurating a monument commemorative of a struggle 
 which led to a nation’s freedom, we could have wished to see greater 
 
 *Mr. Webster’s Bunker Hill Speech, delivered at the Bunker Hill Monument, June 
 17, 1843, and published in the Boston Courier. ggy 
 
334 
 
 Webster’s bunker hill speech. 
 
 enlargement of views, in the orator selected to give expression to the feel¬ 
 ings of the day. We would have looked fora loftier tone of moral feeling, 
 as well for less sweeping and more accurate statements of facts. Why 
 give so undue a prominence to the “Pilgrim Fathers,” and their immediate 
 Puritan descendants, who, if there be any truth in history, were any thing 
 but the friends of, at least, religious liberty ? Why hold up this narrow 
 minded and exclusive people, of blue-law and witch-hanging memory, as 
 very paragons of perfection for a nation of enlightened freemen ? Why 
 not at least temper their eulogy with some qualifying remarks? Why, in 
 speaking of the origin and characteristics of our free institutions, pass over 
 in utter silence William Penn and Lord Baltimore, who, in Pennsylvania 
 and Maryland, did at least as much for civil liberty as the pilgrims, and 
 much more than they for religious liberty. The only reason we can assign 
 for this partial view of the subject, is the fact, that the orator was himself 
 a son of the pilgrims, and that both he and his audience partook a little,— 
 just a little,— of the selfish narrow-mindedness of their ancestors. His 
 object was to please his hearers, and he knew well that the high road to 
 their aflections was the beaten track which led to Plymouth rock,— “the 
 Blarney Stone of New England !” 
 
 We do not purpose to examine all the statements of Mr. Webster’s 
 speech. This would lead us too far, besides causing us, perhaps, to trench 
 upon what is not our special province. Hence we shall confine our lemarks 
 to one view of the subject, to which Mr. Webster attaches great, and, we 
 believe, undue importance ; we mean his elaborate comparison between 
 the causes, characters, and results of English and Spanish colonization in 
 America. This hack had been already ridden, almost to death, by school 
 boy declaimers and Fourth of July orators; but the orator of New England 
 mounts it anew; and, as if conscious of the distinguished honor conferred 
 on it by its new rider, the jaded beast awakens to new life, and performs 
 such gambols, that an unpractised observer would almost mistake it for a 
 full blooded Arabian. 
 
 The great principle upon which the oiator bases his comparison, is, we 
 think, entirely correct. Though true, we do not however believe tliat it is 
 new. Count De Maistre, and others, had made the same remark before, 
 though in different words. After having spoken at some length on the history 
 of the monument, and of the particular CA cnt it was desigsed to commemo¬ 
 rate, the orator asks : “ What then is the true and peculiar principle of the 
 American revolution, and of the system of government which it has 
 confirmed and established ?” He answers: “Now the truth is, that the 
 American revolution was not caused by the instantaneous discovery of prin¬ 
 ciples of government before unheard of, or the piactical adoption of political 
 ideas, such as had never before entered into the minds of men. It was 
 but the full development of principles of government, forms of society, 
 and political sentiments, the origin of all which lay back two centuries in 
 English and American history.” And farther on, he accounts for the 
 absence of liberty in the early Spanish colonies of America on the same 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 
 
 335 
 
 principle: *‘As there was no liberty in Spain, how could liberty be 
 transmitted to the Spanish colonies ? ’’ 
 
 However we might differ from him in its application, we admit the truth 
 of the principle itself, in all its extent. It is consonant both with right 
 reason, and v/ith the general experience of mankind. The principle 
 embodied in the old Latin adage — nemo repente fit summus — no one 
 reaches an extreme suddenly — is specially applicable to political institu¬ 
 tions. All changes calculated beneficially to affect whole masses of 
 population, must be the work of time, as well as fully adapted to the 
 condition and wants of the people thus affected. All government is 
 essentially relative to the character and exigencies of the people to be 
 governed. And that government may be pronounced the best, which, 
 in reference to those exigencies, secures life, property, and character, with 
 the least possible sacrifice of individual liberty. And our warm admira¬ 
 tion of republican government, as the best in theory, and in practice^ when 
 the people can bear it, should not lead us into the vulgar absurdity of 
 supposing and asserting that it is the best for all, and under all circum¬ 
 stances. The character and temperament of some people cannot pass 
 through the ordeal of self-government. The French tried it, and failed. 
 And in general, it may be asserted, that, with some exceptions which 
 history affords, a radical democracy is little suited to the warm tempera¬ 
 ment of the South, and that it requires for its maintainance somewhat of 
 the coolness of northern heads. 
 
 With these general remarks, to explain the practical operation of the 
 great principle above laid down, we may easily understand why it is, that 
 our sister republics in the South have not yet fully succeeded in the attempt 
 at self-government. We cannot yet pronounce with safety that they have 
 failed ; much less that they cannot succeed. As the ex-secretary 
 expresses it; “they are yet on their trial, and I hope for a favorable 
 result.” But if they do fail, it will be solely because their transition 
 from a kingly to a republican government was too sudden and too violent, — 
 and that the change was not perhaps adapted to their character and pre¬ 
 vious habits. In the North American colonies almost all the elements of 
 democracy, “ home governments, equality of rights, representative sys¬ 
 tems,” were in full and almost unchecked operation for many years before 
 the declaration of independence ; whereas, in Spanish America, but few 
 of these elements were in existence at all, or developed to any extent, 
 before her colonies threw off the yoke of the mother country. 
 
 But there is another most important consideration, bearing directly on 
 this subject, of which the Bunker Hill orator seems to have lost sight 
 altogether; and without which it is impossible to understand fully the 
 reason of the great political difference between English and Spanish 
 America. He makes it a matter of boast that in all the vast region of 
 Spanish America, there are but between one and two millions of European 
 color and European blood ; while in the United States there are, he says, 
 fourteen millions, who rejoice in their descent from the people of the more 
 
836 
 
 Webster’s bunker hill speech. 
 
 northern part of Europe.’ We scarcely know from what source he 
 derived his information in regard to the number of descendants from 
 Europeans in the Republics of the South. Unless our statistics greatly 
 mislead us, there is about the number he mentions in Mexico alone. But 
 let this pass. There are about twenty millions of people in Spanish 
 America.^ Deducting from this number, say two millions of whites, 
 there remain eighteen millions of other races, some of them mixed, but by 
 far the greater number pure descendants of the aborigines. Could it have 
 been reasonably expected, that such vast masses of population, so lately 
 reclaimed from barbarism,—some of them from cannibalism, — should 
 have become so soon capable of the delicate business of self-government ? 
 And this, too, when nations the most refined had tried the experiment and 
 failed ? 
 
 Let us put a parallel case. Suppose,— it can be unhappily but a 
 supposition,— suppose the good Puritans and the other American colo¬ 
 nists, instead of exterminating the poor Indians, had humanely settled 
 down amongst them as the hlood thirsty Spaniards did; had patiently 
 toiled to convert them to Christianity, and thus to reclaim them to 
 civilization ; had intermarried with them and become one people with 
 them, like the Spaniards ; and that, instead of being able to vaunt with 
 Mr. Webster “their English civilization, their English law, and what is 
 more than ally their Anglo-Saxon blood,*’ the people of our colonies had 
 been, nine-tenths of them, the mere descendants of these same aborigines ; 
 would they, think you, under these circumstances, have ever declared 
 their independence, or had they declared it, would they have been able to 
 make it good ? And to make the case entirely parallel ; suppose., that 
 the Spaniards, after having exterminated the Indians of South America, 
 should have declared^and made good their own independence ; and that, 
 while striving to imitate their noble example, we were prevented from 
 meeting with full success by the drawback upon our energies arising from 
 our vast semi-civilized Indian population, and that, in the midst of our 
 difficulties, our Spanish neighbors should taunt us with our want of 
 success, and boast their superior numbers of “pure Castilian blood,” — 
 would we not think their jeers a refinement on cruelty ? Would we not 
 retort, by asking them, what had become of the millions of God’s 
 creatures, whom their heartless policy or cruelty had immolated ? If we 
 taunt them with their cruelty to the Indians now, what would we do 
 then ? Would we not boast of our superior humanity, and put this in, as 
 a mitigating plea, for our want of success in self-government? 
 
 Alas ! even as the case stands now, with the spectres of hundreds and 
 thousands of poor exterminated Indians rising up from their graves, and, 
 like the ghost which appeared to Macbeth, staring Mr. Webster full in 
 the face, he could, without a blush, boast of the superior refinement and 
 
 1 These and the following statistics refer to the year 1843 ; there are at least twenty millions at 
 present. 
 
 2 This estimate does not include Brazil, which is Portuguese, and which contains about seren 
 millions of people. 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 337 
 
 greater purity of blood of himself and hearers, and taunt the Spaniards 
 with their inhumanity ! “Do unto others as you would wish them to do 
 unto you,”— is an old maxim, as sound in political economy, as it is in 
 morals; and if the orator of Bunker Hill had given over his boasting, and 
 attended a little more closely to this divine injunction, he would have 
 acted more wisely as well as more justly. Was it fair in him, while 
 instituting a comparison between North and South America, wholly to 
 conceal a notorious fact, so honorable to the Spaniards, and so essential to 
 enable his hearers -to understand the true cause of their present political 
 condition? 
 
 But there is secret cause of deep aversion to Spain, and to everything 
 Spanish. The Spaniards are Catholics, and their colonies are entirely 
 Catholic. And none shared this feeling of hostility to Catholics more 
 deeply, than those who were assembled around Bunker Hill monument 
 on occasion of Mr. Webster’s great speech. The orator was well aware 
 of this state of feeling, and he knew that nothing would cater to it better, 
 than praise of the pilgrims at the expense of Spanish colonists. We will, 
 however, do him the justice to say, that he does not openly pander to this 
 prejudice, he does not give in to the silly and hackneyed school-boy 
 declamation, about the Mexicans and South Americans being unfitted for 
 liberty, because of their being priest-ridden; but covertly, he more than 
 intimates this, unless we have greatly misapprehended the tenor of his 
 remarks. True, he asserts, “ that making all allowance for situation and** 
 climate, it cannot be doubted by intelligent minds, that the difference now 
 existing between North and South America is justly attributable, in a 
 great degree, to political institutions.” Had he said wholly, or at least 
 adverted to the other great reason of difference just stated, he would have 
 been nearer the truth. He ascribes the superiority of the race which 
 peopled North America mainly to “ the reformation of Luther, which 
 broke out, kindling up the minds of men afresh, leading to new liberty 
 of thought, and awaking in individuals energies before unknown, even to 
 themselves,’’ And he adds, that, “the controversies of this period 
 changed society as well as religion.” The poor Spaniards, who had not 
 been blessed with this new northern light, were unfit for self-government; 
 they continued “ in the sleep of a thousand years, in the bosom of the 
 dark aires.” while their more fortunate English brethren had shaken off 
 their slumbers, and had already awakened to visions of liberty ! Well, 
 this is all common-place enough, even for the veriest driveler. One of our 
 fine college bred youths could have said as much, with as much truth, and 
 with infinitely more propriety, than one of our greatest orators and most 
 enlightened statesmen. 
 
 If the reformation of Luther prepared men for freedom, how happened 
 it, that, in all those countries where that reformation obtained the ascen¬ 
 dency, an absolute despotism was established on the ruins of whatever 
 institutions of human liberty had sprung up in the “ dark ages?” Whoever 
 
 will read Hallam’s History of the Middle Ages cannot but become aware 
 2 H 25 
 
838 
 
 Webster’s bunker hill speech. 
 
 of the fact, that, during that greatly misunderstood period, Germany enjoyed 
 much more liberty than since the boasted reformation. What has become 
 of the Free Cities of Germany, of the representative system, and’of the 
 exemption from taxation without the consent of the governed, all leading 
 features in German mediaeval jurisprudence? Alas! they have all been 
 swept away bythe “ reformation of Luther,” or buried under the rubbish 
 of the ruins, which that “ enkindling” event left behind! And what new 
 institutions have replaced those once cherished principles of liberty? Abso¬ 
 lute despotism, with union of church and state and immense standing armies, 
 now constitute the last appeal of law in Protestant Germany. Prussia, 
 Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and little Hanover,have all drunk to the dregs 
 of this better cup of tyranny, put to their lips by those to whom the 
 rhetorical flourishes of modern orators would fain point, as the apostles of 
 liberty ! Facts are stronger evidence than declamation, no matter how 
 exalted the declaimer. 
 
 But was not at least England made free by the reformation ? It is a 
 fact, which Mr. Webster cannot deny, that for nearly one hundred and 
 fifty years after the reformation, the regal prerogative in England swal¬ 
 lowed up almost every other element of the government. There was 
 scarcely a provision of Magna Charta, which the sovereigns of England, 
 from Henry VIII. down to the revolution in 1688,— the brief period of 
 the Commonwealth and of the Protectorate perhaps excepted,— did not 
 «!itjample under foot with impunity. The statute-book of England' fully 
 warrants this assertion. And the great Magna Charta of British freedom, 
 — whence did it spring? Was it of Protestant origin? No. It was fully 
 established at least three hundred years before the reformation was thought 
 of. . It was wholly and exclusively Catholic. The colonists of North 
 America were certainly infinitely more indebted for their liberties to Car¬ 
 dinal Langton and the Catholic barons and yeomanry of Runnymede, than 
 to the reformation of Luther. The restoration of British liberties after 
 Ihe revolution in 1688, was but a return to the great principles embodied 
 in the Catholic Magna Charta \ — an instrument, which, as the parliamen¬ 
 tary records of England will show, had been revived and extended at least 
 thirty times before the reformation. All these facts might not have been 
 palatable to Mr. Webster’s audience ; yet truth required that they should 
 -not have been entirely suppressed. At least truth forbade assertions and 
 statements contrary to, and clearly contradicted by them. 
 
 The New England orator speaks of a great “ middle class which were 
 neither barons nor mere agricultural laborers ; ” and to this middle class 
 he ascribes great influence in preparing the popular mind for self-govern¬ 
 ment. We acknowledge the truth and appropriateness of this remark. 
 But did the reformation of Luther do any thing towards raising up this 
 class ? We tliink not. Instead of raising up the lower classes, it con¬ 
 tributed greatly to depress them. Luther took part with the sovereigns 
 of Germany, when tlie peasants rose up in rebellion to assert what they 
 believed to be their rights. He said that “peasants should be treated like 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 
 
 839 
 
 asses, — if they shake their heads, give them the stick, — if they kick, shocA 
 themy Such was the characteristic language of this boasted apostle of 
 liberty! The truth is, that the Catholic Church of the dark ages did 
 infinitely more to raise up the lower orders, and thereby to build up the 
 middle class, than any other agency. By abolishing the serf-system, and 
 protecting the people against the tyrants, who oppressed them during that 
 period of anarchy, she rendered a lasting service to humanity, and laid 
 the foundation of civil liberty. Such Protestant writers as Guizot, Hallam, 
 Bancroft, Voigt, and Hurter’ have freely acknowledged that fact. Pope 
 Alexander III. A. D. 1167, “ true to the spirit of his office, which during 
 the supremacy of brute force in the middle age, made of the chief minister 
 of religion the tribune of the people, and the guardian of the oppressed, 
 had written, ‘ that nature having made no slaves, all men have an 
 
 EQUAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY.’ ” ^ 
 
 After having duly eulogized the purity of purpose, the disinterested 
 benevolence, and the love of liberty displayed by the pilgrim fathers, the 
 orator of Bunker Hill proceeds to point out the chief differences between 
 them and the colonists of Spanish America. The Puritans, forsooth, 
 did not seek after gold—not they; but “ the mines of gold and silver 
 were the excitements to Spanish efforts ; ” “ the colonists of English 
 America were of the people, and a people already free “ the conquerors 
 and European settlers of Spanish America were mainly military com¬ 
 manders and common soldiers:” the former were “industrious indi¬ 
 viduals, making their own way in the wilderness, defending themselves 
 against the savages, recognizing their right to the soil, and with a generally 
 honest purpose of introducing knowledge as well as Christianity among 
 them “Spain,” with her colonists, “swooped on South America, like 
 a falcon on its prey. Everything was gone. Territories were acquired 
 by fire and sword. Cities were destroyed by fire and sword. Hundreds 
 and thousands of human beings fell by fire and sword. Even conversion 
 of Christianity was attempted by fire and sword.” Finally, the pilgrims 
 brought with them liberty and free trade ; with the Spanish colonists, 
 “ the government, as well as the commerce, was a strict home monopoly.” 
 
 Such are the principal points of difference between the two systems of 
 colonization, as assigned by our orator. There is some truth, with not a 
 little exaggeration, inaccuracy, unfairness, in his parallel. He is not 
 accurate, when he says, that the North American colonists “recognized 
 the right of tlie Indians to the soil:” at least the pious pilgrims seized 
 on the whole territory of the Pequods, embracing the present State of 
 Connecticut, without any equivalent.* It is not correct, that the Spanish 
 
 1 Since become a convert, to Catholicity. 
 
 2 Biincroft, vol 1. p. 163. He gives a free translation of the PontiflTs language, taken from his 
 ’otter to Lupus, king of Valentia. This Pope of the dark ages employs almost the identical words 
 of our declaration of Independence : “ But since nature has created all men free, no one was, by the 
 condition of nature, subject to servitude;” Cum autem omnes liberos natura creasset, nullus 
 condiiione naturae fuit subilitus servituti.” Hist. Anglic. Script, vol 1, p. 580.—quoted by Bancroft. 
 
 3 Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 98. See also vol. iii, p. 408, where he says, that in Massachusetts the first 
 planters assumed to themselves a right to treat the Indians on the foot of Canaanitesand Amalecitos.” 
 
340 WEBS Tim’s' BUNKER HILL SPEECH. 
 
 Government sanctioned the bad treatment of the Indians by some of ita 
 unworthy agents, or that “ conversion to Christianity was attempted by fire 
 and sword.” We will have occasion to show more fully the inaccuracy of 
 this statement a little later; ‘ but we will here insert, for the edification of 
 the ex-secretary, the testimony of Washington Irving, who has investigated 
 Spanish History as thoroughly, perhaps, as any other man in our country: 
 
 “The laws and regulations (of Spain) for the government of the newly 
 discovered countries, and the decision of the Council of the Indians on all 
 contested points, though tinctured in some degree with the bigotry of the 
 age, were distinguished for wisdom, justice and humanity, and do honor 
 to the Spanish nation. It was only in the abuse of them by individuals, 
 to whom the execution of the laws was entrusted, that these atrocities 
 were committed. It should be remembered, also, that the same nation 
 which gave birth to the sanguinary and rapacious adventurers, who 
 perpetrated these cruelties, gave birth likewise to the early missionaries, 
 like Las Casas, who followed the sanguinary course of discovery, binding 
 up the wounds inflicted by their countrymen; men who, in a truly evan¬ 
 gelical spirit, braved all kinds of perils and hardships, and even death 
 itself, not through a prospect of temporal gain or glory, but through a 
 desire to meliorate the condition, and save the souls of barbarous and 
 sull'ering nations. The dauntless enterprises and fearful peregrinations of 
 many of these virtuous men, if properly appreciated, would be found to 
 vie in romantic daring with the heroic achievements of chivalry, with 
 motives of a purer and far more exalted nature.”" 
 
 But the chief fault of Mr. Webster’s picture is its evident partiality. 
 He sins more by omission than by commission. Keeping all the faults of 
 the pilgrim fathers carefully concealed, he presents us only their good 
 qualities over highly colored: while, on the other hand, he hides all the 
 good deeds of the Spaniards, and exhibits only their faults, and these 
 greatly exaggerated. We will endeavor to supply this two fold deficiency, 
 oy briefly stating some of the good deeds of the Spaniards, and some of 
 the bad deeds of the Puritans of New England. And we will assert nothing 
 in which we will not be fully borne out by the authority of Irving and 
 Bancroft; by the former for Spanish, and by the latter chiefly for North 
 American transactions. We presume that our orator will not object to the 
 testimony of these two men, both of them Protestants, both countrymen 
 of his own, and the latter a brother New Englander of the same old Puritan 
 stock, and a great admirer too of the pilgrims. To consult brevity, we 
 will confine our remarks to the Relative Treatment of the Aborigines by 
 ‘the Spanish and English American Colonists. 
 
 To begin with the zeal manifested by the two sets of colonists for the 
 religious improvement of the native American races, how advantageously 
 do the Spanish settlers compare with the English colonists of America, 
 in this respect ? Irving says : 
 
 “ It is difficult to speak too highly of the extraordinary enterprises and 
 Splendid actions of the Spaniards, in those days of discoveiy. Reli<nous 
 zeal was the very life and soul of all Spanish maritime enterprise. R was 
 
 1 This subject has been already treated in some detail, so far as Mexico is concerned, in our article* 
 on Prescott's Conquest of Mexico. 
 
 2 Irving, Columbus, vol. ii, p. 326, Appendix. Edit. N. York, 1831. 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 
 
 341 
 
 the great motive whicli stimulated Columbus to undertake his voyage of 
 discovery ; it was the darling scheme of the great patroness of Columbus 
 — Queen Isabella. One of the great objects held out by Columbus in his 
 undertaking was the propagation of tlie Christian faith. He expected to 
 arrive at the extremity of Asia, at the vast and magnificent empire of the 
 Grand Khan, and to visit the dependent islands, of which he had read 
 such glowing accounts in the writings of Marco Polo. In describing these 
 opulent and semi-barbarous regions, he reminded their majesties of the 
 inclination manifested in former times by the Grand Khan to embrace the 
 ChrisLian faith; and of the missions that had been sent by various Pontiffs 
 and pious sovereigns, to instruct him and his subjects in Catholic doctrines. 
 
 He now considered himself about to effect this great woik.’ . . . Isabella 
 had nobler inducements. She was filled with pious zeal at the idea of 
 effecting such a great work of salvation.”^ 
 
 This feeling of religious zeal continued to predominate in the mind of 
 Columbus, throughout his long and eventful career : 
 
 “ In all his voyages, he will be found continually seeking after the ter¬ 
 ritories of the Grand Khan, and even after his last expedition, and when 
 nearly worn out by age, hardships, and infirmities, he offered, in a letter 
 to the Spanish monarchs, written from a bed of sickness, to conduct any 
 missionary to the territories of the Tartar emperor, who would undertake 
 his conversion.”^ 
 
 This was his ruling passion strong in death. In his last will and testa¬ 
 ment, he recommended this darling object of his soul to his executors and 
 to his son Diego : 
 
 * “ Item : when a suitable time shall come, he shall order a church to be 
 built in the island of Hispaniola, and in the most convenient spot, to be 
 called Santa Maria de la Concepcion; to which is to be annexed an hospital 
 on the best plan, like those of Italy and Castile.” . . . 
 
 ” Item : I also order Diego my son, or whomsoever may inherit after 
 him, to spare no pains in having and maintaining in the island of Hispaniola, 
 four good professors of theology, to the end and aim of their studying and 
 laboring to convert to our holy faith the inhabitants of the Indies ; and in 
 proportion as, by God’s will, the revenues of the estate shall increase, in 
 the same degree shall the number of teachers and devout persons increase, 
 who are to stuive to make Christians of the natives ; in attaining which no 
 expense shall be thought too great 
 
 Irving draws this character of the great Columbus : 
 
 ” He was devoutly pious ; religion mingled with the whole course of his $ 
 thoughts and actions, and shone forth in all his private and most unstudied 
 writings. Whenever he made any great discovery, he celebrated it by 
 solemn thanks to God. The voice of prayer and the rrielody of praise rose 
 from his ships, as they first beheld the new world ; and his first action on 
 landing was to prostrate himself on the earth, and render up thanksgivings. 
 Every evening, the Salve Regina^ and other vesper hymns were chauuted 
 by his crew ; and masses were performed in the beautiful groves that bor¬ 
 dered the wild shore of this heathen land. The religion thus deeply seated 
 in his soul, diftused a sober dignity and a divine composure over his whole 
 demeanor. His language was pure and guarded, free from all imprecations, 
 oaths, and otlier irreverent expressions. All his great enterprises were 
 undertaken in the name of the Holy Trinity; and he partook of the holy 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 7C. 3 Id. ii, 298, Appeiidi.x. 4 Ibid. 
 
 1 Irvine. Colniiibus i. 72. 
 
 2H2 
 
342 
 
 Webster’s bunker hill speech. 
 
 Sacrament previous to embarkation. He observed the festivals of the 
 Church in tlie. 'wildest situations. The Sabbatli was for him a day of 
 sacred rest, on wliich he never set sail from a port, unless in a case of 
 extreme necessity.” ‘ 
 
 These relicfious sentiments continued to animate him to his last breath: 
 
 “ Having thus scrupulously attended to all the claims of affection, 
 loyalty and justice upon earth, Columbus turned .his thoughts to heaven; 
 and having received the holy sacraments and performed all the pious 
 offices of a devout Christian, he expired with great resignation on the day 
 of Ascension, 20th of May, 1506, being about seventy years of age. 
 His last words were: In manus Tuas, DominCy commendo spiritum meum 
 — into Thy hands, 0 Lord, I commend my spirit.”^ 
 
 It is not a little remarkable, that he believed himself specially guided 
 by heaven in the great work of discovering America. Thus, in the 
 representations which he made to Ferdinand and Isabella, when sent 
 back to Spain bound with chains by the cruel Bobadilla, 
 
 “He avowed in the fullest manner his persuasion, that from his earliest 
 infancy, he had been chosen by heaven for the accomplishment of those 
 two great designs, the discovery of the new world, and the rescue of the 
 holy sepulchi*e. For this purpose, in his tender years, he had been 
 guided by a divine impulse to embrace the profession of the sea. . . . 
 His understanding had been opened by the Deity, as with a palpable hand, 
 so as to discover the navigation of the Indies; and he had been inflamed 
 with ardor to undertake the enterprise. Animated as hy a heavenly fire* 
 he adds, ^ I come to your Majesties; . . . — who will doubt that this liyhl 
 was f rom the holy Scriptures, illuminating you as well as myself, with 
 rays of marvelous clearness P ” ^ 
 
 Nor were Columbus and Isabella alone in this; theirs was the general 
 feeling of the age. Spanish and Portuguese enterprise was stimulated by 
 this exalted motive. It seemed as if divine providence, at this epooh, 
 meant to provide new and ample fields for the exercise of this lofty 
 feeling, in new worlds discovered or visited for the first time, both in the 
 east and in the west; and thereby more than compensate the Church by 
 accessions to her numbers from among new people, for wliat she was to 
 lose in the religious dissensions of the sixteenth century. While the 
 Catholic Columbus was discovering America, another illustrious Catholic, 
 the Portuguese Vasco de Gama, doubled, for the first time, the Cape of 
 4 Good Hope in 1497 ; and another Portuguese, Pedro Alvares Cabral, 
 discovered Brazil, and made a voyage to the East Indies. Nor were the 
 vast territories, thus thrown open to Europeans, left unimproved by religious 
 culture. Wherever the Spaniards and the Portuguese penetrated, there also 
 the Catholic religion was established. The missionary accompanied the 
 Conqueror, softening the horrors of war, and planting the cross of Christ 
 by the side of the banner of the earthly monarch. A holy zeal for the 
 salvation of souls thus stimulated, accompanied, and crowned every noble 
 enterprise of discovery and conquest. 
 
 It had ever been so in Catholic times. Religious zeal had ever culmi- 
 nated over every merely earthly motive or consideration. Tlius when the 
 
 1 Ibid. Tol. ii, pp. 202, 203. 2 Ibid. p. 193. 3 Ibid. p. 74. 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 
 
 343 
 
 three great Venitian navigators and travelers, Nicholas, Maffeo, and Marco 
 Polo, penetrated into the heart of Asia in the thirteenth century, the first 
 thing thought of was the introduction of Christianity into the new regions 
 they explored. The two first returned to Europe in 1269, witli letters 
 from the Grand Khan to the Pope asking for one hundred Christian 
 missionaries. They revisited Tartary in 1271, carrying with them two 
 missionaries, and letters from Pope Gregory X.‘ And whoever will read 
 the annals of the Church of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries will 
 not fail to remark, what vast accessions to her numbers were made in 
 Asia during that period, chiefly by missionaries from the Franciscan and 
 Dominican orders, then recently established.^ 
 
 When Columbus discovered the new world, the first thing he did on 
 landing, was “to throw himself on his knees, kiss the earth, and return 
 thanks to God with tears of joy.” He then erected a banner “emblazoned 
 with a green cross,” and recited a prayer, which was subsequently used 
 by Bilboa, Cortes, Pizarro, and other Spanish commanders in their voyages 
 of discovery. The purport of the latter portion of it was, to “ bless and 
 glorify the name, and to praise the majesty of God, for having vouchsafed 
 to make use of His humble servant, as an instrument for having His holy 
 name made known and preached in that other part of the world;” — so 
 paramount was this consideration of religion in all that the Spaniards 
 undertook or did.^ The consequence of all this religious zeal has been 
 the conversion to Christianity of the vast body of the aboriginal popula¬ 
 tion of Spanish America; and this result alone, should silence forever 
 those whose prejudice leads them to sneer at the bigotry and avarice 
 of the Spaniards. 
 
 Was the result similar in North America? The Jesuits, indeed, 
 converted whole tribes of Indians in Canada, and in the valley of the 
 Mississippi.But what did the Puritans do, with all their affected 
 “purity of purpose, and with all their cant about disinterested zeal for 
 religion? They did very nearly nothing. If they had “a generally 
 honest purpose of introducing knowledge as well as Christianity among 
 the Indians ” — it must have remained a mere purpose ; for in general 
 they seemed to take very little concern about the matter. We read of 
 their preachers persecuting one another,— driving K^ger Williams, and 
 Ann Hutchison, Wheelwright, Aspinwall and others into the wilderness 
 for opinion’s sake, deeming them “unfit to live in the colony;”* we 
 read of their assisting at the trial and hanging of witches at Salem ; and 
 of their marching with, and saying long prayers for, the armies that were 
 engaged in exterminating the poor Indians ; but did they do anything 
 to evangelize them ? We read of John Eliot and a few others making 
 
 1 For ail inti'resting notice of the three Polo’s, see Irving, Columbus ii 290 seqq. 
 
 2 Full particulars on this most interesting subject will be found in the Church History of«Beo- 
 chetti — a continuation of Cardinal Orsi’s work. 
 
 3 See Irving, Columbus i. 103 note, for the prayer in Latin. 
 
 4 See Bancroft, vol. iii, Chap 20. for a most interesting account of the labors and success of tha 
 Jesuit iiiissioiiiiries in North America ; quoted in a previous paper. 
 
 t Bancroft, vol. i, pp. 367-8, and 390 seqq. 
 
 *• 
 
344 
 
 Webster’s bunker hill speech. 
 
 a feeble effort for thi-s purpose, among the Indians in the immediate 
 vicinity of Hoston ; but Bancroft testifies to their almost total failure. 
 “Yet Christianity had not spread beyond the Indians on Gape Cod, 
 Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, and the seven feeble villages around 
 Boston. The Narragansetts, a powerful tribe, counting at least a thous¬ 
 and warriors, hemmed in between Connecticut and Plymouth, restless 
 and jealous, retained their old belief; and Philip of Pokanoket, at the 
 head of seven hundred warriors, professed with pride the faith of his 
 fathers.” * The Puritans exterminated a great number of tribes as we 
 shall soon see;—they did not convert one to Christianity ! 
 
 The indefatigable and saintly Father Sebastian Basies labored with 
 earnest zeal, for more than a quarter of a century, among the Indians of 
 Maine, many of whom he succeeded in converting to the Catholic faith. 
 His missions were in a most flourishing condition, when the jealousy of 
 the neighboring colony of Massachusetts was aroused ; nor did it sleep, 
 until it brought about the most barbarous murder of the good missionary, 
 and the massacre, or dispersion of the tribes which he had converted to 
 Christianity ! The following passage furnishes a curious contrast between 
 the modus operandi, and the respective success of Catholic and Protestant 
 missionaries in converting the Indians. “ Tlie government of Massa¬ 
 chusetts attempted in its turn to establish a mission ; and its minister 
 made a mockery of purgatory and the invocation of saints, of the cross 
 and the rosary. ‘My Christians,’ retorted Rasies, ‘believe the truth of 
 the Catholic faith, but are not skilful disputants and he himself 
 proposed a defence of the Roman Church. Thus Calvin and Loyola 
 met in the woods of Maine. But the Protestant minister, unable to 
 compete with the Jesuit in the affections of the Indians, returned to 
 Boston, while the friar remained ‘ the incendiary of mischief.’”^ After 
 the martyrdom of Rasies, so graphically related by Bancroft,^ and the 
 breaking-up of his missionary establishments, “the influence by com¬ 
 merce took the place of influence by religion, and English trading houses 
 supplanted French missions.”Thus it was, that in numerous cases the 
 filthy love of lucre marred the noble work of God ! So much for the 
 disinterestedness of the Puritans, and their “ generally honest purpose of 
 introducing knowledge, as well as Oiiristianity, among the natives ! ” 
 
 The early Spanish and Portuguese navigators compare advantageouslv, 
 in character and usefulness to mankind, with those of Eno-land eno-ao-ed 
 in exploring and peopling North America. Where, in English naval 
 annals of discovery, will you find names as illustrious as those cf Dc 
 Gama, Cabral, the Pinzons, Vespucci, and Columbus ? In fact, the 
 early English navigators. Sir John Hawkins, Raleigh, Drake, and 
 Weymouth, were as unprincipled as they were adventurous. They were 
 
 •s and pirates on a large-scale. We will £ifive a 
 
 few facts on this subject. 
 
 When Weymouth was about to sail from the mouth of the Penobscot, 
 
 1 Hancrofr, ii, 97. 2 Ibid iii, 334-5. 3 Ibid. 330, se^. 4 Ibid. 
 
 If 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 
 
 ' 345 
 
 five natives were decoyed on board the ship, and Weymouth, returning 
 England, gave three of tliem to Sir Ferdinand Gorges, a friend ©f 
 Raleigh, and governor of Plymouth.”* Of Sir John Hawkins, Ban¬ 
 croft says : 
 
 “ The odious distinction of having first interested England in the slave 
 trade belongs to Sir John Hawkins. He had fraudulently transported a 
 whole cargo of Africans to Hispaniola ; the rich returns of sugar, 
 ginger, and pearls attracted the attention of queen Elizabeth, and when a 
 new expedition was prepared, she was induced not only to protect but to 
 share in the traffic. In the accounts which Hawkins himself gives of one 
 of his expeditions, he relates that he set fire to a city, of which tlie huts 
 were covered with dry fallen leaves, and out of eight thousand inhabitants, 
 succeeded in capturing two hundred and fifty. (Query—how many 
 did he burn ?) The deliberate and even self-approving frankness with 
 which this act of atro(!ity is related, and the lustre which the fame of 
 Hawkins acquired, display in the strongest terms the depravity of public 
 
 sentiment (English) in the age of Elizabeth.Yet the commerce, 
 
 on the part of England, in the Spanish ports was by the laws of Spain 
 illicit, as well as by the laws of morals detestable ; and when the 
 sovereign of England panicipated in its hazards, its profits and its crimes, 
 she became at once a smuggler and a slave merchant.”** 
 
 oo 
 
 The Catholic Church used every effort to prevent the slave trade, and 
 to mitigate the severities occasionally exercised by the Spaniards against 
 the Indians: 
 
 “ A series of papal bulls had indeed secured to the Portuguese the 
 exclusive commerce with western Africa, but the slave trade between 
 Africa and America, was, I believe, never expressly sanctioned by the 
 See of Rome. Even Leo X. declared that ‘not the Christian religion 
 only, but nature herself cries out against the state of slavery.’ And 
 Paul III., (June 10, 1543) in two separate briefs, imprecated a curse 
 [anathema) on the Europeans, who should enslave Indians, or any other 
 class of men. It even became usual for Spanish vessels, when they 
 sailed on voyages of discovery, to be attended by a priest, whose 
 benevolent duty it was, to prevent the kidnapping of the aborigines.” ^ — 
 . . . “ Ximenes, the gifted coadjutor of Ferdinand and Isabella, saw in 
 advance the danger which it required centuries to reveal, and refused to 
 sanction the introduction of negroes into Hispaniola, believing that the 
 favorable climate would increase their number, and infallibly lead them 
 to a successful revolt.” *' 
 
 And yet, in spite of Roman Pontiffs and of Ximenes, negroes were 
 extensively introduced into Hispaniola, thanks chiefly to the unprincipled 
 avarice of Sir John Hawkins, of Queen Elizabeth, and of the English; 
 and the prediction of the great Ximenes was fully verified, in the 
 massacre and expulsion of the whites from that island ! 
 
 Much has been said and written about the cruelty of the Spaniards 
 towards the Indians,—about their having forced them to labor in the 
 mines, sold them into bondage, and wasted their numbers by cruel exac¬ 
 tions, and by fire and sword. We have no mission to delend these 
 cruelties ; but we are convinced that there is much exaggeraLion on the 
 
 1 Bancroft i, 115 
 
 2 Ibid, i, 173 seq. 
 
 3 Ibid, i, 172. 
 
 4 Ibiii. 
 
346 
 
 Webster’s bunker iiilu speech. 
 
 subject. The severities in question were neither general, nor long con¬ 
 tinued, nor authorized by the Spanish Government. They occurred in 
 the sudden excitement of conquest, and they were checked so soon as the 
 conduct of the individuals, who perpetrated them, could be investigated. 
 Washington Irving has told us above, what was the line of conduct 
 pursued by the Spanish government, and we have also seen how those 
 cruelties were rebuked by the Roman Pontiffs. We will give a few 
 additional facts. The oppression of the Indians of Hispaniola by the 
 weak and unwise Bobadilla 
 
 “Aroused the indignation of Isabella ; and when Ovando was sent to 
 supersede Bobadilla in 1502, the natives were pronounced free: they 
 immediately refused to labor in the mines. Ovando represented to the 
 Spanisli sovereigns in 1503, that ruinous consequences resulted to the 
 colony from this entire liberty granted to the Indians. He stated, that the 
 tribute could not be collected, for the Indians were lazy and improvident, 
 that the natives could only be kept from vices and irregularities by occupa¬ 
 tion ; that they now kept aloof from the Spaniards, and from all instruction 
 in the Christian faith. This last consideration had an influence with 
 Isabella, and drew a letter from the sovereigns to Ovando in 1503, in 
 which he was ordered to spare no pains to attach the natives to the Spanisli 
 nation and the Catholic religion. To make them labor moderately, if 
 absolutely essential to their own good, but to temper authority with persua¬ 
 sion and kindness. To j)ay them regularly and fairly for their labor, and 
 to have them instructed in religion on certain days’*^ 
 
 Such was the general and authorized policy of Spain in regard to the 
 Indians. Was not its basis humanity, hallowed by religion ? Again, 
 when some of the Indians were brought to Spain, and sold at Seville as 
 slaves, “ Isabella, in a transport of virtuous indignation, ordered them to 
 be sent back to their country.”^ After the death of De Soto, the Spaniards 
 were about to abandon their conquest of Florida. At this juncture, Louis 
 Cancello and two other Dominicans offered their services, to preach to and 
 convert those savages whom Spanish arms could not conquer. Their 
 offer was accepted ; but these devoted men all fell martyred victims to 
 their zeal. “ Christianity was to conquer the land, against which so 
 many expeditions had failed. The Spanish governors were directed to 
 favor th-e design; all slaves that had been taken from the northern shore 
 of the gulf of Mexico weie to be manumitted and restored to their 
 country.”^ So true is it, that wherever the authority of the Spanish 
 government and of the Catholic religion could be fully felt, there the 
 fetters of the captive were stricken off, and he became free. And at this 
 day, there is scarcely a vestige of slavery in all Spanish America.'* 
 
 Most of the accounts of Spanish cruelty rest upon the authority of Las 
 Casas. He was a great and good man, but the statements contained in his 
 work entitled “ Relation of the Indies,” should be received with many 
 grains of allowance. The impression made upon his exquisitely sensitive 
 heart, by the sight of the wrongs inflicted on his beloved Indians, was so 
 
 1 Irving, Columbus ii. 162. 2 Irving, Columbus ii. 320. 3 Bancrofc i. 60. 
 
 4 The Pt>rtuguese colonies have not in this respect imicateil the example of those established by 
 Spain. Slavery is also maintained on the Spanish Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico. 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 347 
 
 acute, and his interest for redressing their grievances so intense, that in 
 speaking of the cruelties practiced against them he greatly exaggeiated. 
 Almost all the critics admit this. Dr. Robertson and Washington Irving 
 both give the same opinion.‘ Charlevoix says, “that he had too lively 
 an imagination, and permitted himself to be carried by away it; ” and 
 “there reigns in his book a spirit of over sensitiveness and exaggeration, 
 that makes greatly against it.” ^ His statements were controverted at the 
 time by Dr. Sepulveda ; and a lively controversy was carried on in Spain. 
 Charles V. and the learned Dominico Soto, his confessor, embarrassed by 
 contradictory statements from the two parties, could not come to a 
 decision as to the real merits of the dispute. 
 
 But the unremitted efforts of Las Casas to meliorate the spiritual and 
 temporal condition of the Indians are above all praise : 
 
 “ The whole of his future life, a space exceeding sixty years, was 
 devoted to vindicating the cause, and endeavoring to meliorate the sufter- 
 ings of the natives. As a missionary, he traversed the wilderness of tlie 
 new world in various directions, seeking to convert and civilize them ; as 
 a companion and protector, he made several voyages to Spain, vindicated 
 their wrongs before courts and monarclis, wrote volumes in their behalf, 
 and exhibited a zeal and constancy, and intrepidity, worthy of an apostle. 
 He died at an advanced age of ninety-two years, and was buried at 
 Madrid, in the church of the Dominican convent of Atocha, of which 
 fraternity he was a member.” ^ 
 
 Such was Las Casas ; and yet he was but one of a numerous band of 
 devoted men. What a contrast between his spirit and life, and that of any 
 of the Puritan preachers of New England !’ Take, for example. Cotton 
 Mather, one of the most distinguished among the ministers of the pilgrims. 
 How fierce and fanatical the spirit he displayed throughout his long life, 
 and especially during the little reign of terror, — from February to 
 October of the year 1692, — while the trials for witchcraft were going on 
 at Salem! He and his creature, the deputy governor Stoughton, together 
 with the ministers Parris and Noyes, got up and enacted that comic tragedy, 
 in which great numbers of men, women, and children perished on the scaf¬ 
 fold : “ And uttering a midnight cry, he wrestled with God to awaken 
 
 the churches to something remarkable. A religious excitement was 
 resolved on. ‘ I obtained of the Lord that he would use me,’ says the 
 infatuated man, ‘ to be a herald of His kingdom now approaching.’ ” •* 
 Whoever reads the account of these strange proceedings, as given by 
 Bancroft, must feel his blood tingle in his veins, and must sigh over the 
 strange fanaticism of the pilgrims. 
 
 What will be thought, for instance, of this curious extract from the 
 records? “At the trial of George Burroughs, a minister, the bewitched 
 persons pretended to be dumb. ‘ Who hinders those witnesses,’ says 
 Stoughton, ‘ from testifying ?’ ‘ I suppose the devil,’ answered Burroughs. 
 
 1 Irving, Columbus ii. p. 325; Appendix. Dr. Robertson calls him “ a restless and dissatislied 
 man.” History of America. 
 
 2 Ilisttiiie de 8. Douiingue, L. 5, A. D. 515, & L. 6, A. D. 1547. 
 
 3 Irving, Columbus ii. 320. 
 
 4 llainToft iii. 81. 
 
348 
 
 Webster's bunker hill speech. 
 
 ‘How comes tlie devil,’ retorted the chief judge, ‘ so loath to have any tes¬ 
 timony borne against you?’ And the question was effective. Besides he 
 had given proofs of great, if not preternatural muscular strength. Cotton 
 Mather calls the evidence ‘enough ;’ the jury gave a verdict of‘guilty.’”* 
 What will be thought of the fierce exclamation of the minister Noyes, 
 when eight persons were hung up together for witchcraft; “there hang 
 eight fire-brands of hell !”^ And what of the heartless speech of Cotton 
 Mather to the crowd assembled to witness the execution of Burroughs ?^ 
 Alas for human nature, if these men are to be held up as paragons for 
 imitation ! 
 
 It ill becomes the children of the pilgrim fathers to taunt the Spaniards 
 with their inhumanity to the natives. The Puritans of New England have 
 to settle a much deeper and darker score in this matter. It may not be 
 generally known, that it was quite common of old to kidnap and sell into 
 foreign bondage the Aborigines of North America. Yet no fact of history 
 is more undoubted ; “The practice of selling the natives of North America 
 into foreio*n bondao*e continued for near two centuries, and even the 
 sternest morality pronounced the sentence of slavery and exile on the 
 captives, whom the field of battle had spared. The excellent Winthrop 
 enumerates Indians among his bequests. The articles of the early New 
 England confederacy class persons among the spoils of war. A scanty 
 remnant of the Pequod tribe in Connecticut, the captives treacherously 
 made by Waldron in New Hampshire, the harmless fragments'of the tribe 
 of Annawon, the orphan offspring of King Philip himself, were all doomed 
 to the same hard destiny of perpetual bondage. The clans of Virginia 
 and Carolina, for more than a hundred years, were hardly safe against the 
 kidnapper. The universal public (English) mind was long and deeply 
 vitiated.’** 
 
 The treatment of the Indians by the Catholics of Maryland is a brilliant 
 exception to this remark, and forms one bright page at least in our^early 
 colonial history. True, a border war raged there also for a brief space, 
 commenced by the Indians, who had not yet entirely recovered from the 
 jealousies which the malignant Clayborne had infused.” But soon “peace 
 was re-established on the usual terms of submission and promises of 
 friendship, and rendered durable by the prudent legislation of the assembly, 
 and the firm humanity of the government. The pre-emption of the soil 
 was reserved to Lord Baltimore, kidnapping an Indian made a capital 
 ofience, and the sale of arms prohibited as a felony.”® 
 
 Where now are the numerous and flourishino: tribes of Indians which 
 once peopled New England ? Where are the Pokanokets, the Narragan- 
 setts, the Pequods, the Mohegans, and the Mohawks, to say nothing of 
 other tribes ? All have disappeared from the face of the earth, thanks to 
 
 1 Biincron, iii. 84. 2 Ibid. p. 93. 3 Bancrofr, ibid. 
 
 4 Ibid P. I, 168-9. Speaking of the traffic in white slaves sold to the colonies, Bancroft says : At 
 the cori'espoiidiiig period in Ireland, the crowded exportation of Irish Catholics was a frequent 
 event, and wtts attended by aggravations hardly inferior to the usual atrocities of the African slave 
 trade, i. 176. 5 Bancroft, i, 2u3. 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 
 
 349 
 
 the cold-blooded policy and heartless cruelty of the Puritans ! They all 
 vanished at the first dawn of English civilization, like snow under the rays 
 of the sun ! First over-reached in trade by the cunning Yankees, then 
 hemmed up within restricted territories, then goaded into war, and then 
 exterminated by fire and sword: — such was in general the mode of dealing 
 with the poor natives of the north-eastern states; a heartless policy sub¬ 
 sequently followed, with a few honorable exceptions, by the North American 
 colonists. These are strong assertions, and they must prove unpalatable 
 to those descendants of the pilgrims, who boast their pure “ Anglo Saxon 
 blood,” and taunt the Spaniards with their cruelty. But we will make 
 them all good by indubitable testimony. 
 
 The Pokanokets were the first tribe which sheltered the pilgrims after 
 their landing on Plymouth rock: and they were the first to fall victims to 
 their insidious and ungrateful policy. The venerable old chief Sachem of 
 this tribe, Massasoit,— who had thrown open the door of his wigwam to 
 the new comers, had fed them with his bread, warmed them at his fire, 
 and cordially welcomed them to the new world, had already departed this 
 life, else he might have lived so witness the wanderings of his fugitive son^ 
 king Philip of Mount Hope, and the cruel bondage under the burning sun of 
 Bermuda, of his orphan grand-son, the only heir to his dignity, and the 
 last of his race ! 
 
 We have already seen what reliance is to be placed on the assertion of 
 Mr. Webster, “ that the Pilgrims recognized the right of the natives to 
 the soil.” Bancroft will tell us how they recognized this right in the 
 Pokanokets. Repeated sales of land had narrowed the domains of these 
 original proprietors of the soil : 
 
 “And the English had artfully crowded them into the tongues of land, 
 as most suitable and convenient for them.* There they could be more 
 easily watched for the frontiers of the narrow peninsulas were inconsid¬ 
 erable. Thus the two chief seats of the Pokanokets were the necks of 
 land, which we now call Boston and Tiverton. As population pressed on 
 other savages, the west was open: but as the English villages drew nearer 
 and nearer to them, their hunting grounds were put under culture; and, 
 as the ever urgent importunity of the English (pilgrims) was quieted for 
 a season by partial concessions from the unwary Indians, their natural 
 parks were turned into pastures ; their best fields for planting corn were 
 gradually alienated; their fisheries were impaired by more skillful methods; 
 and as wave after wave succeeded, they found themselves deprived of 
 their broad acres, and by their own legal (!) contracts, driven as it were 
 into the sea.”** 
 
 As they were not amphibious and could not starve, they naturally 
 became indignant; and “ when the expressions of common passion were 
 repeated by an Indian tale-bearer, fear magnified the plans of the tribes 
 into an organized scheme of resistance.”^ King Philip, their chief 
 
 1 Winslow, a cotemporary quoted by Bancroft, avows this cruel policy. 
 
 2 Vol. ii, p. 99. The first chief who made a treaty with the I’ilgrims was Massasoit, who observed 
 it religiously as long as he lived. It is curious that, before he ratified the treaty he drank a prodi¬ 
 gious draft of rum. (See Ist IJ. of Hist. p. 29.) So much for early Yankee .shrewdness in bargaining! 
 
 S Ibid. 
 
 2 I 
 
350 
 
 Webster’s bunker hill speech. 
 
 Sachem was, on suspicion, summoned before a Puritan tribunal, to which 
 he had been once before compelled to deliver up his arms. The 
 indignation of his tribe broke out into a flame at this indignity offered to 
 tlieir chief, and the Indian informer who had betrayed him was mur¬ 
 dered. The murderers were ferreted out, condemned, and hung ; the 
 Indians retaliated on the American settlers, and thus a war of extermina¬ 
 tion broke out in New England.’ The Pokanokets were exterminated, 
 and Philip became a wanderer : 
 
 “ Once he escaped narrowly, leaving his wife and only son prisoners. 
 *My heartbreaks,’ cried the tattooed cbieitain, in the agony of his grief— 
 
 ‘ now I am ready to die ! ’ His own followers began to plot against him 
 to make terms for themselves, and in a few days he was shot by a faithless 
 Indian. The captive orphan was transported. So perished the princes 
 of the Pokanokets ! Sad to them had been their acquaintance with civili¬ 
 zation ! The first ship that came on her coast had kidnapped men of 
 their kindred ; and now the harmless boy, who had been cherished as an 
 only child, and the future Sachem of their tribes, the last of the family of 
 Massasoit, was sold into bondage, to toil as a slave under tlie sun of 
 Bermuda ! ” 
 
 The Narragansetts do not appear to have joined the alleged Indian 
 leaofue aofainst the whites. Yet, when the war broke out, “ the little 
 army of the colonists entered the territories of the Narragansetts, and 
 from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty of neutrality, with a promise to 
 deliver up every hostile Indian.”* And because, in violation of this 
 extorted treaty, they subsequently had the humanity to afford shelter 
 to such of their fugitive brethren among the Pokanokets, as had escaped 
 extermination : 
 
 “ It was resolved to regard them as enemies; and a little before the 
 winter solstice, a thousand men levied by the united colonies, and 
 commanded by the brave Josiah Winslow, a native of New England, 
 invaded their territory. . . . Feeble palisades could not check 
 
 the determined valor of the white men, and the group of Indian cabins 
 was soon set on fire. Thus were swept away the humble glories of the 
 Narragansetts. The winter’s store of the tribe ; their curiously wrought 
 baskets full of corn; their famous strings of Wampum ; their wigwams 
 nicely lined with mats,— all the little comforts of savage life were 
 consumed. And yet more,— ifAeir old men, their women, their babes 
 •perished by hundreds in the fire ! Then, indeed, was the cup of misery 
 full for these red men. Without shelter and without food, they hid 
 themselves in a cedar swamp, with no defense against the cold but 
 boughs of evergreen trees. They prowled the forest and pawed up the 
 snow, to gather nuts and acorns, they dug the earth for ground nuts ; 
 they ate remnants of horse flesh as a luxury ; they sank down from 
 feebleness and want of food.” 
 
 Their brave old chief Caronchet, after wandering and suffering much, 
 was at length taken prisoner. Yet his spirit was not broken. “ His life * 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 100. 
 
 2 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 108. The historian informs us, that “ in the progress of the year, between two 
 and three thousand Indians were killed or submitted.’* Ibid. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 102. 
 
 4 Ibid. p. 104-6 
 
ENGLISH AND SPANISH COLONISTS. 351 
 
 was offered him, if he would procure a treaty of peace ; he refused the 
 offer with disdain. Condemned to death, he only answered, I like it well; 
 I shall die before I say anything unworthy of myself.” ‘ The historian 
 closes the*sad story of the Narragansetts, with these memorable words: 
 “Of the once prosperous Narragansetts, of old the chief tribe of New 
 England, hardly one hundred men remained. The sword, fire, famine, 
 and sickness, had swept them from the face of the earth.” ^ 
 
 If anything could surpass the cold blooded cruelty of these acts of 
 atrocity, it was the treatment of the Pequods of Connecticut, whose 
 territory the children of the pilgrims had invaded, without purchase or 
 any equivalent whatever, thereby showing how far “ they recognized in 
 the natives the right to the soil.” “ After nearly a whole night spent, at 
 the request of the soldiers in importunate prayer by the ‘ very learned and 
 godly Stone,* *’ ® the colonial army commanded by John Mason, proceeded 
 to attack the Pequod towns, the principal of which they surprised at 
 break of day : 
 
 “The superiority of numbers was with them (the Peqnods), and 
 fighting closely hand to hand, though the massacre spread from wigwam 
 to wigwam, victory was tardy. ‘ We must hum them shouted Mason, 
 and cast a firebrand to windward among the light mats of the Indian 
 cabins. Hardly could the English withdraw to encompass the place, 
 before the whole encampment was in a blaze. Did the helpless natives 
 climb the palisades; the flames assisted the marksmen to take good aim 
 at the unprotected men : did they attempt to sally ; they were cut down 
 by the English broad swords. The carnage was complete : about six 
 hundred Indians, men, women and children, perished ; most of them in 
 the hideous conflagration! In about an hour, the whole work of destruc¬ 
 tion was finished, and two only of the English (Puritans) had fallen in 
 the battle. The sun, as it rose serenely in the east, was the witness of 
 the victory.”^ 
 
 And such a victory ! We think these facts abundantly sustain the 
 statements made above. We might pursue this line of illustration and 
 proof still farther ; for, unhappily, the materials for it are but too 
 abundant. But we sicken at these enormities. 
 
 Such then were the tender mercies of the Puritans 1 Such their claims 
 to our admiration and imitation 1 We will not deny their good qualities : 
 but we must be allowed to think, that the shades predominated over the 
 lights in their character ; and that if, in spite of its shades, their character 
 is still luminous, it is with such a lurid light as is emitted by paintings 
 belono-ino-to the class called by the Italians chiarooscuro — clear obscure. 
 
 We will leave Mr. Webster to settle his account, as best he may, with 
 his two countrymen, Irving and Prescott, as well as with God and his 
 own conscience 1 While he is engaged in the settlement, would it not be 
 well for him to exert his powerful influence in New England, to have 
 
 1 Ibid p. 106. 2 Ibid, p. 109. 3 Ibid vol. !, p. 399. 
 
 4 Bancroft, 400-1. It was usual for the different colonial governments of North America to offer 
 bounties for the scalps of the Indians. Thus, the government of Massachusetts “ stimulated the 
 activity of private parties, by offering for each Indian scalp at first a bounty of fifteen, and after¬ 
 wards of a hundred pounds.” Bancroft, iii. 336. 
 
352 
 
 WEBSTEIl\s BUNKER HILL SPEECH. 
 
 removed one dark spot from the escutcheon of his state,— to clear away 
 those gloomy ruins of Mount Benedict which still crown Bunker Hill, in the 
 immediate vicinity of tlie monument, and which-“ cast a dark shadow on 
 the soil of Massachusetts ” ? They too are monumental. ’I*liey com¬ 
 memorate a dark event, the injustice of which, is yet unredressed ; and 
 they prove, that the fierce and sternly intolerant spirit of the Puritans is 
 not yet extinct. Unless removed by the justice of Massachusetts, we 
 trust that those ruins will be as abiding as the Bunker Hill monument 
 itself! 
 
 Since the above was written, the children of the Puritans have 
 exhibited such unmistakeable signs of bigoted intolerance, as to prove to 
 all the world that they are worthy of their illustrious ancestors. The 
 children have, indeed, far outstripped the fathers in the race of persecu¬ 
 tion. Four or five Catholic churches sacked or destroyed by them, some 
 on the hallowed anniversary festival of American Independence; their 
 Catholic fellow-citizens denounced, slandered, and vilified by hired street 
 brawlers ; the mob spirit openly invoked against the property and lives of 
 Catholics : — these are some among the recent exploits of those who boast 
 their “ Anglo-Saxon blood,’’ and glory in being the descendants of the 
 pilgrim fathers 1 They are heartily welcome to all the glory they can 
 derive from such achievements as these ! . 
 
XIX. OUU COLONIAL BLUE LAWS.* 
 
 ARTICLE I. — UNION OP CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 Why we treat this subject—Who are, and who have been the persecutors ?—Meaning of the term ZKi/e 
 Z.aiPJ—Effort at concealment—Bancroft’s reserve—Other historians of New England—Character ot 
 the Puritans—Their good and their bad qualities—Their treatment of the Aborigines—Their incon 
 sistency—Two classes of Blue Laws—Union of Church and State—Conformity—The franchise— 
 Established religion—Observance of the Sabbath—Severe enactments—Law against priests—Spirit 
 of persecution in New York—Miscellaneous laws— Indians and wolves—Use of tobacco—Manner 
 of dress—Cut of the hair—Matrimony—And divorce—By whom were the Blue Laws repealed?— 
 Seme Blue Laws of Virginia—The land of “ steady habits”—Catholic Colony of Maryland, 
 
 If we be asked, why we treat of the Blue Laws at this particular time, 
 our answer is at hand. We are moved by no feeling of uncharitableness, 
 but simply by a love of historic truth, and a motive of just self-defense. A 
 systematic attempt has been made to fasten all the odium of narrow¬ 
 mindedness and persecution on the Catholic Church ; and at present this 
 is the favorite battle-cry of those who seek, in this free country, to render 
 Catholics hateful to their fellow-citizens, and to deprive them even of their 
 undoubted civil rights. With strange inconsistency, this undisguised efibrt 
 to crush Catholic liberty and rights, is made in the name of liberty itself ! 
 It is with this hallowed word on their lips, that the misguided agents of a 
 truculent secret political society rush to the sack or burning of our 
 churches, and to the open slaughter or secret assassination of our people ! 
 This much-abused name of liberty is the staple of the hired street brawler, 
 who openly excites the mob to riot and arson, in our heretofore peaceful 
 streets and highways. The minister of religion, too, whose office should 
 incline him to exhort men to the love of God and of the neighbor, is not 
 unfrequently found to take up the same maddening cry, and to throw his 
 influence into the scale of hatred and anarchy, instead of that of love and 
 peace! 
 
 * I. The Blue Laws of New Haven Cobny, usually called the Blue Laws of Connecticut; 
 Quaker Laws of Plymouth and Massachusetts; Blue Laws of New York, Mar fund, 
 Virginia, and South Carolina. First Record of Connecticut; interesting extracts from Con 
 necticut Records; cases of Salem witchcraft; charges and banishment of Rev. Roger 
 Williams, ^'C., and other interesting and instructive antiquities. Compiled by an Antiquarian 
 Hartford : Printed by Case, Tiffany & Co. 1838. 1 vol. 12ino. pp. 336. 
 
 II. The Code of 1650 ; being a compilation of the earliest Laws and Orders of the Gena'OJ 
 Court of Connecticut: also, the Constitution, or civil compact entered into and adopted bo the 
 towns of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield, in 1638-9. To which are added some 
 extracts from the laws and judicial proceedings of the New Haven Colony, commonly called 
 Blue Laws. Hartford' Judd, Loomis & Co. 1836. 1 vol. 16mo., pp. 119. 
 
 21*2 a53 
 
354 
 
 OUR COLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 The most singular feature in the present unholy warfare agait.st Catholics 
 in this country, is the fact, which can be established by the most over¬ 
 whelming evidence, that while we are made to bear all the odium of intol¬ 
 erance and persecution, our opponents, and they alone, are fairly open to the 
 charge, so far at least as the history of this country is concerned. We defy 
 any one to lay his finger on the fact of history, which proves that Catholics 
 haveever been guilty of a single actof persecution in the United Stats, either 
 before or since the revolution. This matter is easilj^ tested. Our standard 
 histories are mostly the productions of Protestant writers, and their pages are 
 spread out before tho world. If any such act of intolerance can be pointed 
 out, as having been perpetrated by Catholics in this country, we would really 
 desire to see the evidence, even on respectable Protestant authority; for 
 we have never yet found a solitary instance, though our reading in this 
 department of history has been tolerably extensive. What we want is 
 FACTS, not WORDS. Until our bitter opponents are prepared to meet this 
 fair and reasonable issue, they should surely remain silent, if they have 
 any sense of decency or of justice left. 
 
 Have American Catholics ever attempted to get up a persecution of 
 slander against their fellow-citizens ? Have they ever employed street 
 preachers to vilify their brother religionists ? Have they ever sought to 
 burn Protestant churches ? Have they ever enacted persecuting laws, 
 when—as in the Maryland colony—they had the power to do so. If they 
 have done or attempted none of these things, then why all this bitter 
 opposition to their civil and religious rights in this country ? 
 
 Can our enemies come out of this ordeal of historic facts equally 
 unscathed? We think not. The evidence of all our colonial history must 
 be blotted out, before they can hope to escape the accusation, that, while 
 so strongly denouncing their neighbors for a persecuting spirit, they and 
 their ancestors have been, in point of fact, the only persecutors in this 
 hemisphere ! 
 
 Much as we regret to write it, the narrow-minded persecuting spirit of 
 the Puritans still survives in their descendants. Survives, — did we say? 
 We are unjust to the memory of the Puritans. They had, at least, some 
 method, some religion, and some decency in their persecution; their descend- 
 .ants have retained only their inveterate hatred of Catholicity. This does 
 not, of course, apply to all or even to the greater portion of American Pro¬ 
 testants ; but it is fairly applicable to all those who are either openly or 
 .tacitly engaged in the present unscrupulous and unprincipled crusade 
 against Catholics in this Jree country. 
 
 It is with these views that we republish the articles written some years 
 ago on our Colonial Blue Laws. The facts we will unfold, entirely on 
 Protestant authority, will show conclusively, who first brought the spirit 
 along with the practice of persecution into this country. 
 
 We will not pause to examine the question, whether the denomination 
 J^lue Laws originated in the trivial circumstance that the first printed 
 edition of them was put forth enveloped in blue colored paper, or from the 
 
UNION OP CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 355 
 
 fact that the laws themselves were deemed intrinsically blue. A. par¬ 
 tiality to the former opinion, it may be, induced the authors or publishers 
 of the two works which we propose to review, to have the first put up iu 
 a blue cover, and the second printed entirely on blue paper ; while, iu 
 confirmation of the latter opinion, it may be said that the popular accepta- 
 .tion of the term certainly denotes something more than the mere color of 
 paper or covering. The skillful autiquary may, perhaps, reconcile the 
 two opinions, by supposing that the name was originally given in conse- 
 ^quence of the circumstance alluded to, but that afterwards it was 
 associated in the popular mind with the peculiar nature of the laws them- 
 ,selves. Every philologist knows, that many words ii^ all languages have 
 been subject to these variations in signification. One thing is certain, 
 that the epithet Blue Laws now denotes a system of legislation, marked 
 by narrow-minded policy and proscriptive exclusiveness. 
 
 There has been manifestly a studied effort on the part of the descendants 
 of the New England Puritans to cover up and to conceal, as far as was 
 possible, all traces of the very peculiar legislation adopted by their fore¬ 
 fathers. It was only after very considerable exenions and delay, that wo 
 could succeed in procuring copies of the two little works under review; 
 
 a circumstance not a little.remarkable, when we consider that the editions 
 
 * 
 
 pf them are comparatively recent. ' Whether it is that the editions were 
 .bought up by the curious almost as soon as they were issued,— which we 
 think scarcely probable,—or that they were suppressed, or met with but 
 little encouragement, we would not venture to say. Certain it is, that tile 
 .copies are now very-scarce, and that the works themselves are but little 
 known to pur booksellers, at least to those in the west and south. If we 
 are to believe the compilers of the works under consideration, they too 
 had great difficulty in procuring the necessary materials. The anonymous 
 /‘antiquarian ” to whom we owe the first publication, assures us that, of 
 .the first edition of five hundred copies, comprising the laws compiled by 
 Governor Eaton at the instance of the general court of the New Haven 
 colony, and printed in London in 1656, only two copies, so far as his 
 lesearches extended, are now to be found in this country.* Mr. Silas 
 Andrus, the author of the other smaller work, tells us “ that the first 
 revision of the early laws of Connecticut was never before printed;”^ 
 that the earliest laws of the colony were recorded only in manuscript; 
 and that he had often the greatest difficulty in deciphering the text, 
 /‘ particularly for the reason that the record, in some parts, was nearly 
 obliterated, and in others totally gone.” He adds : “ other parts of the 
 record, therefore, have been resorted to, and the copy rendered complete. 
 -The ancient orthography has been accurately preserved.” ^ 
 
 Both productions carry with them intrinsic evidences of laborious 
 research, and of a sincere wish to be accurate; and we are quite sure that 
 the compilers will receive the thanks of all who are interested in the study 
 of the early histoiy and antiquities of our country. All that we regret is. 
 
 1 Prefact*, p 6. 
 
 2 Preface. 
 
 3 Ibid 
 
a56 
 
 OUR COLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 « 
 
 that the works are not gotten up in better style, that they have had 
 apparently so limited a circulation, and that the authors had not the 
 courage to attach their names to the title-page. Does it, then, really 
 require so great an amount of moral courage to tell the truth, when it . 
 conflicts with popular error and prejudice ? 
 
 It would seem so. Thus, how very gently does not Mr. Bancroft, in 
 his late popular History of our colonies, toucdi upon the eccentricities of 
 character, and the legislative peculiarities of the pilgrim fathers! How 
 much, and how very skillfully does he not labor to soften down, or to 
 obliterate altogether, the shades of the historic picture 1 We do not 
 venture to characterize this course as disingenuous and wholly unworthy 
 the honest and impartial historian, — tliis might appear too sweeping a 
 censure,—but we do say, that we would have admired the woi-k of our 
 historian much more, had he ventured to tell the whole truth. He cannot 
 enter the plea of expediency ; for the historian should prefer truth to 
 expediency. He cannot plead ignorance; for he certainly must have had, 
 spread out before him, the original records of the New England colonies, 
 and, among others, those identical documents which are reproduced in the 
 two works under consideration. 
 
 Besides, he might have imitated the candor, and profited by the labors, 
 of at least three distinguished New Englanders, who had preceded him 
 in the historical career; and who had not feared to tell the truth, and to 
 call things by their right names. We refer to Belknap’s biographical and 
 other works; to Barber’s Antiquities of New Haven; and to Peter’s work 
 on the Blue Laws. The truth seems to be, that Mr. Bancroft wrote his 
 work quite too near Plymouth rock, — “the blarney stone of New. 
 England; ” and that he sought too much to cater to the prejudices of his 
 countrymen. We can scarcely find any other explanation of his great 
 discretion, in regard to matters upon which he should have been more 
 explicit and detailed. Had he been only as candid in reference to the. 
 Blue, Laws, as ho was in regard to the persecution of Roger Williams, of 
 the Quakers, and of the Witches, we would have deemed these strictures 
 wholly uncalled for. As it is, we may venture the suggestion, that the 
 eminent historian will yet supply the deficiency we have indicated, in some 
 future editioix of his valuable work, and that he will furnish us, at least 
 in an appendix or a note, a faithful abstract of the early colonial Blue 
 Laws of New England. This is what we purpose to attempt in the 
 present paper, which we might entitle,—A Chapter that should have been 
 in Bancroft. 
 
 We would deem it unjust to the memory of the Puritans who settled 
 New England, to say that they had no good qualities whatever, or even 
 that their vices very greatly preponderated over their virtues. Faults 
 they certainly had, faults as grievous as they were notorious and clearly 
 marked. But they had excellencies also, which should be taken into the 
 account in the estimate of their character. They were bold, daring, 
 courageous, industrious, sober, enterprising, and religious after their own 
 
UNION OP CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 857 
 
 fashion. With an arduous mission to accomplish, they shrank not from 
 the difficulties which encompassed them. Trained in the painful school 
 of suft’ering and privation, and possessed of iron nerve, they were dis¬ 
 couraged by no reverses, appalled by no dangers. Men of less sternness 
 of purpose would have given up the undertaking upon which they embarked, 
 as utterly impracticable. They, however, never lost hope of a favorable 
 issue ; and, with an elasticity of character which does them honor, they 
 surmounted obstacles, even as a ship rides the waves which threaten to 
 engulf it in the abyss. And they have bequeathed this same enterprising 
 and indomitable spirit to their children. 
 
 This much we say in their praise. But when this is said, all is told. 
 Their faults stood forth, at least as prominent as their virtues. They were 
 narrow-minded, exclusive, proscriptive, and short-sighted in their char¬ 
 acter, and in the whole line of their conduct and policy. In temporal 
 matters, they sacrificed every thing to their own paltry interests. Their 
 treatment of the poor Indians who then peopled New England, is worthy 
 of a reprobation which we can find no words in our language strong 
 enough properly to characterize. We have already stated the facts, on the 
 authority of Bancroft;* and until they can be blotted from the pages of 
 history, we must be excused from entertaining that lofty opinion of the 
 Puritan character, which our Fourth-of-July orators, and Ply mouth-rock- 
 anniversary declaimers would fain wish to thrust on us. These fulsome 
 eulogists must give us fuller and fairer statements of facts, ere we can 
 change our opinion of the pilgrim fathers, or regard their glowing repre¬ 
 sentations as a faithful picture of the real character of those men. We 
 must have the shades, as well as the lights of the picture. We must have 
 an account of the Blue Laws, of the Quaker Laws, of the Witch Laws—of 
 the stocks, of the whipping-posts, and of the branding-irons; —as well as 
 of the pure religious feelings, and of the lofty patriotic aspirations of the 
 pilgrim fathers. 
 
 We must be told that, whereas they fled from the old world for the 
 avowed purpose of escaping a grinding Protestant persecution, and of 
 breathing, in a virgin hemisphere, the pure air of religious liberty, they 
 notwithstanding had no sooner established themselves in their new homes, 
 than they boldly set to work to establish odious religious tests, to enforce 
 religious uniformity, to persecute and to drive into the wilderness brother 
 Protestants who had the misfortune to interpret the Scriptures differently 
 from themselves; to banish, to hang, to brand, or to bore with red hot 
 irons the tongues of the inoffensive Quakers ; to hunt up and exterminate 
 the poor witches; and to enact the Blue Laws. Really, we can be satisfied 
 with nothing less; and though the Plymouth orators may make wry faces, 
 and protest loudly against taking a medicine so very unpalatable, they 
 should still take it like men, if they be the lovers of historic truth. 
 
 The days of idle declamation and of overstrained or false eulogy are, 
 we fondly hope, drawing to a close, and those of sober truth are beginning 
 
 1 In the Review of Webster’s Bunker Uili Speech. 
 
358 
 
 OUR COLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 to dawn upon us. Men now-a-days will not b6 satisfied with any thing 
 less than the truth, and the whole truth, just such as genuine history unfolds 
 it: and if, under this process, phantoms which we have conjured up for 
 our own special entertainment should vanish, or if visions of ancestral 
 glory should disappear altogether, or be brought down to the standard of 
 sober reality, still the whole truth must be boldly and fearlessly told. Only 
 those who are laboring to bolster up a bad cause can fear the truth ; and 
 the time has come when even the children of the Puritans must nerve 
 themselves to look the facts boldly in the face. 
 
 Nor let us be told, that the faults to which we allude were but blemishes 
 in the otherwise stainless character of the pilgrim fathers. We know that 
 this has been often said, and that it is even fashionable to repeat it; but it 
 is not the more true for all this. To every reasonable and impartial man 
 it must appear manifest, that the charges we prefer against the early 
 colonists of New England, embrace something more than mere trifles and 
 peccadilloes ; something more than mere peculiarities and eccentricities; 
 something, in a word, which deeply involves the very substance of their 
 moral and religious character. Was it a mere trifle to hang witches, to 
 hang Quakers, to drive out brother Protestants, to butcher Indians? Was 
 it, even, a mere trifle to adopt a system of vexatious legislation, which 
 established a harassing espionage over a man’s most trivial actions, which 
 prescribed the cut of the hair, the fashion of the dress, and the particular 
 occasions on which mothers might with impunity kiss their children, or 
 wives their husbands? Were all these things, and many more of a similar 
 character, mere blemishes ? 
 
 We think not; and we are of opinion that all our readers will agree 
 with us in opinion, if they will only have the patience to examine those 
 peculiarities of legislation, an abstract of which we will now proceed to 
 lay before them. We shall state nothing, which has not been taken from 
 authentic records by the two writers, to whose works we have called atten¬ 
 tion, or which cannot be substantiated by other undoubted collateral 
 authorities. And as the first work on our list comprises nearly all that is 
 contained in the second, we may as well admonish our readers that our 
 quotations shall be mainly taken from its pages. 
 
 The Blue Laws of New England may be distributed into two classes : 
 the first comprising those connected with religion ; and the second, those 
 which regarded secular matters. We will present several curious specimens 
 of legislation under each of these classes, from the various codes repub¬ 
 lished in the volumes before us. The laws in question v/ere enacted by 
 the General Courts of the different plantations in successive years; and of 
 the Codes embracing them, that of the Plymouth or Massachusetts colony 
 is the oldest, dating back as far as 1638, but that of New Haven, drawn 
 up by Governor Ejiton, and printed in 1656, is by far the bluest. The 
 latter seems to have been derived, with various additions and improve¬ 
 ments, from the former. A striking similarity both in principles and in 
 k.nguage pervades all the early New England Codes ; and to avoid needless 
 
UNION' OP CHUECH AND STATE. 
 
 359 
 
 repetition, we shall quote sometimes from one collection and sometimes 
 from another, presenting whatever may be considered most striking. 1 
 1 . Religion was a prominent feature in the whole system of New 
 England legislation. Every Code which we have examined is based upon 
 the doctrine of a union of church and state, and contains provisions rigidly 
 enforcing religious conformity. Crimes against religion were punished 
 by civil penalties always rigid, sometimes wantonly cruel. The pilgrim^ 
 fathers had been the victims of the same principle in the old world ; still 
 they took most special care to re-establish it forthwith in the new. They 
 required every one to come up to their own peculiar standard of orthodoxy, 
 and to believe neither more nor less than themselves. A complete' 
 theocracy, modified in its development according to times, places, and 
 circumstances, appears to have been the cardinal principle, and the darling 
 idea of all the founders of New England. If it be not historically true,' 
 — as some one has stated it to be,— that “they agreed to take the law of 
 God for their guidance until they could make a better,^' it is at least certain, 
 that they attempted to revive the antiquated system of theocratic govern¬ 
 ment unfolded in the books of Moses, and that they even, in many instances, 
 added to its risror. 
 
 The following laws are predicated on the principle of religious con¬ 
 formity, or of union of church and state : 
 
 “Whosoever shall frequently neglect the public worship of God on the 
 Lord’s day, that is approved by this government, shall forfeit for every such 
 default convicted of, ten shillings, especially where it appears to arise 
 from negligence, idleness, or profaneness of spirit,” (Laws of the 
 Plymouth colon 3 ^)’ * •• 
 
 “ Every person in this jurisdiction, according to the mind of God, shall 
 duly resort and attend worsliip upon the Lord’s day at least, and upon 
 public fasting or thanksgiving days, and if any person, without just cause, 
 absent or withdraw from the same, he shall for every such sinful miscar¬ 
 riage forfeit five shillings.” (Laws of New Haven colony.)^ 
 
 “ It is ordered, that if any Christian (so called) shall within this juris¬ 
 diction behave himself contemptuously towards the word of God preached,: 
 or any member thereof called and faithfully dispensing the same in any 
 congregation, either by intenaipting him in Ids pieaching, or falsely 
 charging him with errour, to the disparagement and hindrance of the 
 work of God in his hands, (Acts xiii. lU with Bena his note upon ity 
 every such person or persons shall be duly punished either by the planta¬ 
 tion court, or court of magistrates, according to the quality and measure 
 of the offence, that all others may fear to break out into such wickednesse.” 
 (Gov. Eaton’s Laws,)^ 
 
 This same principle is carried out in a variety of details, which ourlimiLs 
 do not allow us to furnish ; but we can not refrain from quoting two other 
 passages in Gov. Eaton’s Collection, which distinctly and boldly avow the 
 doctrine itself. They are taken from the “ fundamental agreement,” of 
 the plantations composing the New Haven colony ; and their estimated 
 importiince may be inferred from the fact, that the first is taken from the 
 
 1 blue Laws, &c , p. 55- 
 
 2 Ibid, p 127. 
 
 3 Ibid, p. 17<i 
 
360 
 
 OUR COLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 very beginning of the agreement itself, and the second is the first 
 fundamental law on the list of articles subjoined to that instrument: 
 
 “ That none shall be admitted freemen, or free burgesses, within this 
 jurisdiction, or any part of it, but such planters as are members of smno 
 one or other of the approved churches of New England; nor shall any 
 such be chosen to magistracy, or to carry on any part of civil jurisdiction, 
 or as deputies or assistants to have power, or vote in establishing laws, 
 or in making or repealing orders, or to any chief military office or trust, 
 nor shall any others but some such church members have any vote in any 
 such elections, though all others admitted to be planters have right to 
 their proper inheritances, and doe and shall enjoy all other civil liberties 
 and priviledges according to all laws, orders, or grants, which on (are?), 
 or hereafter shall be made for this colony.” ' 
 
 “1. This court thus framed, shall first, with all care and diligence, 
 from time to time, provide for the maintainance of the purity of religion, 
 and suppress the contrary, according to their best light and directions 
 from the word of Ood.’* ^ 
 
 To these we will add the foljowing provisions, likewise contained in 
 Gov. Eaton’s Code : 
 
 “ 22. All the people of God within this jurisdiction, who are not in 
 church way, being orthodox in judgment, shall have liberty to gather 
 themselves to a church estate. (1656.) 
 
 “ 23. No man shall be admitted to the freedom of this jurisdiction, who 
 IS not a member of some church in New England, approved by the 
 magistrates and churches of this colony.” (New Haven Colony Laws, 
 1656.)^ 
 
 The following law, passed by the General Court convened at Hartford 
 in 1660, though it is couched in language very similar to that of one 
 already quoted, is so curious that we cannot refrain from giving it entire. 
 After a suitable preamble, the Court says: 
 
 “It is therefore ordered and decreed: That if any Christian (so 
 called) within this jurisdiction, shall contemptuously behave himselfe 
 towards the word preached or the messengers thereof, called to dispence 
 the same in any congregation when he doth faithfully execute his service 
 and office therein, according to the will and mind of God, either by inter¬ 
 rupting him in his preaching, or by charging him falsely with an error 
 w’h he hath not thought in the open face of the church, or like a sonne 
 of Korah, cast upon his true doctrine, or himselfe any reproach, to the 
 dishonour of the Lord Jesus who hath sent him, and to the disparagement 
 of that his holy ordinance, and making God’s wayes contemptible and 
 ridiculous, that every such person or persons (whatsoever censure the 
 church, may passe) shall for the first scandal be convented and reproved 
 openly by the magistrates at some lecture, and bound to their good be- 
 havoour. And if a second time they breake forth in the like contemptuous 
 carriages, they shall pay either five pounds to the publique treasury or 
 stand two houres openly vpon a block or stoole four foott high vpon a lecture 
 day, with a paper fixed on his breast, written with capiUrlle letters. An 
 
 OPEN AND OBSTINATE CONTEMNER OF God’S HOLY ORDINANCE, that OtllCrS 
 
 may feare and be ashamed of breaking out into the like wickednesse.” 
 
 Closely connected with this branch of the subject, are the Laws regula* 
 ting the observai ce of the holy Sabbath day. These were surely blue 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 142 2 Ibid. p. 145 • 8 Ibid. p. 127-8. 4 Ibid. p. 107-8. 
 
UNION OF CllUKCH AND STATE. 
 
 361 
 
 enough. They would have suited the taste of the JeAvs, even of the 
 sneeiinu' Pharisees, who were for ever blamiiiQ^ our blessed Lord himself 
 for his alleged violations of the holy Sabbath day ! The Puritans had 
 very erroneous, or at least very highly exaggerated notions in regard to 
 the Sabbath ; notions which, though manifestly more Jewish than Chris¬ 
 tian, they have faithfully transmitted to their posterity. The Plymouth 
 Code contains the following enactment: 
 
 “ This court taking notice of the great abuse and many misdemeanours 
 committed by divers persons in these many ways, profaneing the Sabbath 
 or Lord’s day, to the great dishonour of God, reproach of religion, and 
 grief of the spirit of God’s people. Do, therefore, order, that whosoever 
 shall profane the Lord’s day, by doing unnecessary servile work, by 
 unnecessary travailing, or by sports and recreations, he or they that so 
 transgress, shall forfeit for every such default forty shillings, or he 'publicly 
 whipt ; but if it clearly appear that sin was proudly, presumptuously, and 
 with a high hand committed, against the known command and authority of 
 the blessed God, such a person therein despising and reproaching the 
 Lord, Shall be put to death, or grievously punished at the discretion 
 of the court.” ' 
 
 This law was re-enacted, in similar language, by the colonies of New 
 Haven and Hartford, with the addition of the appropriate scriptural 
 references ! ^ Sabbath breaking was one of the highest offences known to 
 the laws; and the legislators descended to the most minute, and even 
 ridiculous details on the subject. Take the following specimens from the 
 collection of Barber and Peters, which comprise laws before unpublished, 
 and anterior to those contained in the printed Code of Gov. Eaton : 
 
 “ 21. No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden, or 
 elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.” (Barber.) 
 
 “22. No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut 
 hair, or shave, on the Sabbath day.” (Barber.) 
 
 “ 23. No 'woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting day.” 
 (Barber.*) 
 
 “ 24. The Sabbath shall begin at sunset on Saturday.”^ 
 
 To these add the following singular law taken from Gov. Eaton’s Code: 
 
 “38. If any man shall kiss his wife or wife her husband on the Lord’s 
 day, the party in fault, shall be punished at the discretion of the court 
 of mauistrates.” ^ 
 
 To this the author of the work from which we are quoting appends tho 
 following note : 
 
 “ Tradition says, a gentleman of New Haven, after an absence of some 
 months, reached home on the Sabbath, and meeting his wife at his door, 
 kissed her with an appetite, and for his temerity in violating this law, the 
 next day was arraigned before the court, and fined, for so palpable a 
 breach of the law on the Lord’s day.” 
 
 Tliis reminds us of another law, said to be contained in a collection 
 which we have not seen, by which it was prohibited to brew beer on 
 Satui-day, lest it should work, and thus violate the Sabbath on the following 
 day ! And of another regulation, in which the proprietors of bees were 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 206; et alibi* 3 Ibid. p. 122. 4 Ibid. p. 130 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 55. 
 
 2K 
 
362 
 
 OURCOLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 required to close tlie orifices of the hives on Saturday evening hefoH 
 sunset, lest the industrious little insects should be guilty of Sabbath 
 breaking! We do not, however, vouch for the accuracy of either of 
 these regulations; though we are persuaded, that there were many 
 such laws in existence which were never published, and the memory of 
 which was preserved only by tradition. 
 
 In all the early Codes of New England, blasphemy was punished with 
 deatli, and profane swearing with tlie most severe penalties. The laws on 
 these subjects, especially those of Connecticut, were flanked with abundant 
 references to Scripture; and it was a settled maxim, that, where the' 
 colonial law could not reach a particular case, it should be decided on 
 by the law of God. Thus Gov. Eaton’s Code contains the provision 
 subjoined: 
 
 “ 40. No man’s life shall be taken away, honor or good name shall be 
 stained, his person imprisoned, banished, or punished, deprived of his 
 wife or children, or property taken, unless by virtue or equity of some 
 6>xpress law established by the general court, and published ; and for 
 want of a law in any particular case, shall be judged by the word of 
 God. (1636.) 
 
 “41. All capital causes, concerning life, or banishment, if there is no 
 express law, shall be judged according to the word and law of God, by the 
 generall court.” ‘ (1656.) 
 
 As for Roman Catholics, they might expect no toleration, and little 
 mercy from people so peculiarly holy. The following is found among 
 the Blue Laws of Connecticut: ’ 
 
 “10. No priest shall abide in this dominion : he shall be banished and 
 SUFFER DEATH on his rctum. Priests may be seized by any one without 
 a warrant.”^ (In force before 1656.), 
 
 We conclude this portion of the subject with the following singular 
 specimens of legal cant, sanctimoniousness, and acumen : 
 
 “ 36. No one shall read Common Prayer, keep Christmas, or saints’ 
 .days, make minced pies, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of 
 
 1 Ibid, p 130. 
 
 2 Ibid, p 121. In many of the other colonies the Catholics fared little better. In New York 
 city, a CaMiolic priest was publicly banged for his religion! In relation to the legislation of the 
 colony of New York, Chancellor Kent says : 
 
 before the adoption of the present constitution of the United States, the power of naturalization 
 resided in the several states; and the constitution of this state, as it was originally passed (Art. 
 42), required all persons born out of the United .■‘tates, and naturalized by our legislature, to take 
 an oath abjuring all foreign allegiance and subjection, in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil. 
 This was intended, and so it operated, to exclude from the benefits of naturalization Roman 
 Catholics, who acknowledge the spiritnal supremacy of the Pope, and it was the result of former 
 fears and prejudices (still alive and active at the commencement of our revolution) respecting the 
 religion of the Romish (!) church, which European history had taught (!) us to believe w;w 
 incompatible with perfect national independence, or the freedom and good order of civil society 
 So extremely strong, and so astonishingly fierce and unrelenting was public prejudice on this 
 subject, in the early part of our colonial history, that we find it declared by law in the early part 
 of the last century (tJolony laws. vol. i, p. 38, Idvingston’s and Smith's edition), that every Jesuit 
 and popish priest, who should continue in the colony after a given day, should be condemned to 
 perpetual impriionment ; and if he broke prison and e.scaped. and was retaken, he should be put to 
 death. That law. said Mr. Smith, the historian of the colony, as late as 1756 (.‘Smith's History of 
 New York, p 111), w.-is worthy of perperual duration!'’ — Commentaries on Ame-^ican Law, vol- 
 li, pp 62-3. Nen York, 1827. 
 
UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 363 
 
 music, except the drum, trumpet, and jewsharp.'*^ (Barber. Blue Laws 
 of Connecticut.) ‘ ' 
 
 “ 1662. The court proposeth it as a thing they judge would bo very 
 commendable to the townes where God’s providence shall cast any 
 whales, if they sliould agree to set apart some p’te of every such fish or 
 oyle for the incouragement of an able and godly minister amongst themf 
 (Blue Laws of Mass.) ^ 
 
 “ For the prevention of the profanation of the Lord’s day, it is enacted 
 by the court and the authoritie thereof, that the select men of the severall 
 townes of this jurisdiction, or any one of them, mayor shall, as there may 
 be occasion, take with him the constable or his deputie, and repair to any 
 house or place where they may suspect that any slothfully doe lurke att 
 horn or gett together in companie to neglect the publicke worship of God,- 
 or profane the Lord’s day, and finding any such disorder, shall returne 
 the names of the p’sons to the next court, and give notice of any particular 
 miscarriage they may have taken notice of,” &c. (Id.) ^ 
 
 II. Such were some of the principal features in the religious portion of 
 the Blue Laws of New England. We will now furnish some examples of 
 such laws as regarded civil matters. And it will be seen, at a glance, 
 that the same narrow-minded, exclusive, and proscriptive spirit pervaded 
 the whole of that most singular system of legislation. 
 
 The Criminal Code was peculiarly rigid and unmerciful. It multiplied 
 capital offences beyond all the bounds of mercy or reason. Not only 
 idolaU’y and blasphemy, but also sins against purity, rape, and sudden 
 homicide, were punished with death.* In the Code of ^ Connecticut, 
 adultery was also visited with the same penalty.'* And all the laws 
 under this head are duly confirmed by references to the law of Moses 
 as if the law of Moses had not been abrogated by Christ L We subjoin a 
 few among the more curious of these laws : 
 
 “ 6. If any person slayeth another suddenly in anger and cnielty of 
 passion ; he shall he put to death.” (Blue Laws of Mass.) ^ 
 
 “ 25. If any man have a stubborn, rebellious son of 16 years old, who 
 will not obey the voyce of his father or mother, and being chastened, will 
 not hearken unto them, then shall his father and mother, lay hold on 
 him, and bring him to the magistrates assembled in court, and testifie 
 unto tliem, that their son is stubborne and rebellious, and Avill not obey 
 their voyce, but lives in sundry crimes; Such a son shall be put to 
 DEATH.” Deut. xxi, 18, 19, 20, 21. Enacted 1656. (Blue lAws "of 
 New Haven colony.)® 
 
 “ Whoever setts a fire in the woods, and it burns a house, shall 
 SUFFER DEATH ," and pcTSons suspected of this crime shall be imprisoned 
 without benefit of bail’' (Blue Laws of Connecticut.) ^ 
 
 For crimes not capital by the laws, the most severe and cruel punish¬ 
 ments were often awarded. The rack, the stocks, the whipping-post, and. 
 the branding-iron, were not unfrequently put in requisition. Take the 
 following laws as specimens : 
 
 “9. If any person commit burglary, or rob any person, he shall be 
 branded on the right hand with the letter B ; for second ofience, shall be 
 
 1 Ibi.j. i>. r.;3. 2 Ibid. p. 48. 3 Ibid pp. 49, 60. 4 Ibid. p. 12b. 
 
 6 Ibid p 52. 6 Page 128. See the same Jaw iu Massachuietts p 53. 7 Page 122. 
 
364 
 
 OUll COLONIAL BLUE LaWS. 
 
 hranded on his left hand, and whipt, and for the third offence, he shall be 
 put to deatli. Jiidg. xviii, 7.” (Blue Laws of New Haven.) ' 
 
 “ When it appears that an accused has confederates, and he refuses to 
 discover them, he may be racked.^^ (Blue Laws of Conn.)^ 
 
 “30. Whoever publishes a lie to the prejudice of his neighbour, shall 
 sit in the stocks, or be whipped fifteen stripes'* ^ 
 
 “And if any person shall commit such burglary, or so rob in any 
 place on the Lord’s day, he shall (besides restitution and damage) for 
 the first offence be burnt on the right hand as before, and severely whipt ; 
 for the second offence, he shall be burnt on the left hand, stand on the 
 pillory, be severely whipt, and wear a halter in the day time constantly and 
 visibly about his neck, as a mark of infamy, till the court of magistrates 
 see cause to release him from it,” &c. (Blue Laws of New Haven.)'' 
 
 The following singular laws may be classed under the head miscellaneous. 
 We venture to say that no system of legislation that was ever devised, 
 either before or since, can present anything half so curious. 
 
 It would seem that, in Massachusetts, Indians and wolves were 
 classified under the same genus ! In 1675 it was 
 
 “ Ordered by the court, that whosoever shall shoot off any gun on any 
 unnecessarie occation, or att any game whatsoever, except att an Indian 
 OR A wooLFE, shall forfeit five shillings for every such shott, till further 
 liber tie shall be given.” ^ 
 
 The good pilgrims seem to have had a mortal aversion for tobacco. 
 Among the many laws on this most important subject, we select the two 
 which follow : 
 
 “ 1640. That if any person take tobacco whilst they are empannelled 
 upon a jurie, to forfeit five sliillings for every default, except they have 
 given up their verdict, or are not to give yt until the next day, or dep’t 
 the court by consent.” (Blue Laws of Mass.)® 
 
 “It is enacted by the court, that any p’son or p’sons that shall be 
 found smoaking tobacco on the Lord’s day, going to or coming from the 
 meetings, within two miles of the meeting house, shall pay twelve pence 
 for every such default to the colonie’s use.” (Id.)^ 
 
 There were many laws regulating the attire both of males and’ of 
 females, the fashions, and even the cut of the hair! Thus, our author 
 tells us, that , 
 
 “ TujpiG was an ancient law in Massachusetts, that ladies’ dresses should 
 be made so long as to hide their shoe buckles, and in 1630 there was an 
 act of the general court also prohibiting short sleeves, and requiring 
 garments to be lengthened so as to cover the arms to the wrists, and 
 gowns to the shoe buckles ; (also) ‘ immoderate great breeches, knots of 
 ribin, broad shoulder bands, and they be, silk roses, double ruffs and 
 cuffs.’ In the same colony, in 1653, J. Fairbanks was tried for wearing 
 great boots, but was acquitted.” ® 
 
 Among the Blue Laws of Connecticut, we find the following on this 
 subject: 
 
 “ 33. Whoever wears clothes trimmed with gold, silver, or bone lace, 
 above two shillings by the yard, shall be presented by the grand jurors, 
 
 1 Page rJ 6 . 2 Page P2S. 3 Ibi.J. 4 i*age 168. 
 
 6 Page 50. 6 l uge 44 7 Page 40. 8 Page.s 131-2. 
 
UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 865 
 
 and the selectmen shall tax the offender at j£300 estate/’ (Several acts 
 governing tlie attire of the subjects.) ' 
 
 44. Every male shall have his hair cut round according to a cap.*^ 
 (Barber and Peters.) * 
 
 To these our author appends the following note, by way of explanation : 
 
 “ A cap to go round the head was used, drawn close to the head, and 
 the haircut by the cap. A pumpkin severed in the middle, and placed 
 on the head, was often used as a substitute for a cap, in the season of 
 uhem, as tradition says! The Levitical laws forbid cutting the hair or 
 rounding the head.”^ 
 
 O 
 
 The subjoined Blue Laws of Connecticut, taken chiefly from the 
 collections of Peters and Barber, regard different other subjects, and may 
 speak for themselves : 
 
 “ 20. No one to cross a river, but with an authorized ferryman. . 
 (Barber.) 
 
 “ 25. To pick an ear of corn growing in a neighbour’s garden shall be 
 deemed theft. 
 
 “26. A person accused of trespass in the night shall be judged guilty 
 unless he clear himself by his oath. 
 
 “28. No one sliall buy or sell lands without permission of the selectmen. 
 
 “ 29. A drunkard shall have a master appointed by the selectmen, who 
 are to debar him from the liberty of buying and selling. 
 
 “31. No minister shall keep a school. (Barber.) 
 
 “ 32. Every rateable person, who refuses to pay his proportion to the 
 support of the minister of the town or parish, shall be fined by the court 
 j02, and £4 every quarter, until he or she pay the rate to the minister. 
 (Other acts to enforce collection of parochial taxes.) 
 
 “ 34. A debtor in prison, swearing he has no estate, shall be let out and 
 SOLD TO MAKE SATISFACTION. (Altered in 1656.) 
 
 “ 37. No Gospel minister shall join people in marriage. The magis¬ 
 trates only shall join people in marriage, as they may do it with less scandal 
 to Christ’s church. (Barber.) This law was amended by the court 
 in 1694. . ' . . 
 
 “ 39. The selectmen finding children ignorant, may take them fronx 
 their parents, and place them in better hands, at the expense of their 
 parents. (Record.) 
 
 “41. A wife shall be deemed good evidence against her husband. 
 
 “42. Married persons must live together, or be imprisoned. 
 
 “ 43. No man shall court a maid in person or by letter, without first 
 obtaining the consent of her parents ; £5 penalty for the first offence; £10 
 for the second; and for the third, imprisonment during the pleasure of 
 the court.” 
 
 In the following.enactment by the General Court of Massachusetts, we 
 may discover the germ of the odious sedition law proposed by the elder 
 John Adams : 
 
 “ It is ordered, that whosoever shall defame any court of justice, or any 
 of the magistrates or judges of any court in this jurisdiction, in respect of 
 any act or decision therein passed ; every such offender, upon due proof 
 made, shall be by the cour t of magistrates punished by fine, imprisonment, 
 binding to the peace or good behaviour, according to the guilt and measure 
 of the offence or disturbance, to them seeming just and equal. 
 
 1 Page 123. 2 Page 124. 3 Ibid, 4 Pp. 122^. 6 Pp 6o~e. 
 
 2K2 
 
866 
 
 OUR COLONIAL BLUE LAWS. 
 
 ' In regard to the indissolubility of the marriage contract, the good pil¬ 
 grims held opinions not half so rigid as on other points of much less 
 importance. Bible in hand, they allowed of divorce, with the privilege of 
 marrying again, for mere desertion; as appears from the following law of 
 tlie New Haven colony : 
 
 And it is further declared that if any husband shall, without consent, 
 just cause shewn, wilfully desert his wife, or the wife her husband, actu¬ 
 ally and peremptorily refusing all matrimonial society, and shall obstinately 
 persist therein, after due means have been used to convince and reclaim, 
 the husband or wife, so deserted, may justly seek and expect help and 
 relief, according to 1 Cor. vii, 15 ; and the court, upon satisfying evidence 
 thereof, may not hold the innocent party under bondage.”* 
 
 It is sinofular enouo-h, that when “ the New England Eliot” and his 
 Reverend associates attempted to evangelize the savage tribes around 
 Boston, they could devise no better laws for their government than those 
 comprised in the Blue Law Code. The poor Indians were to be civilized 
 i>y a system of trivial, ridiculous, and harassing enactments, the absurdity 
 of which their native good sense must have detected at a glance. The 
 historian of the Protestant missions frankly admits, that “ some of the 
 regulations were frivolous enough, and certainly had better been omitted;” 
 * but he adds, in mitigation, “let it be remembered that every age has its 
 follies.”^. . 
 
 Among these regulations occur the following, which we give as specimens: 
 
 “If any woman shall not have her hair tied up, but shall allow it to 
 hang loose and to be cut as men’s hair, she shall pay five shillings. If 
 •.any man wear longhair, he shall pay five shillings.”^ 
 
 No wonder the efforts to convert and civilize the Indians of New England 
 were so unsuccessful, and finally led to no practical good result. The 
 method adopted by the Protestant missionaries was calculated rather to 
 repel than to attract the savages; and, besides, the blessing of God did not 
 ^smile on their labors ! 
 
 We might greatly multiply our quotations, but those we have alreaaj 
 furnished are deemed sufficient to show the distinctive features in the Blue 
 Law system of legislation. Was there ever such a system heard of, either 
 before or since ? Was there ever one more wantonly cruel in many of its 
 enactments, or more vexatious m its minute details? We believe that it 
 is wholly without a parallel, at least in Christian times. 
 
 And, be it remembered, those laws were not enacted in a dark age, but 
 nearly a century and a half after the light of the blessed reformation had 
 been beaming full upon the world ! They were enacted, tod, by men who 
 boasted of their own superior religious lights, and who set themselves apart 
 from the rest of the world as Puritans, or peculiarly and holy; by men 
 who had the Bible forever at their tongues’ ends, and who were always 
 
 J e. 174. 
 
 2 History of Missions, or of the Propagation of Christianity among thb heathen since the refor¬ 
 mation. By Rev. William Brown 2 vols. 8 vo. Philadelphia, 1816. 
 
 Among the frivolous regulations, he enumerates the following: '“Whoever shall kill their lioe 
 between thoir teeth, shall pay flvo ehiilinga ! ” 3 Ibid. 
 
UNION OF CHURCH ANE STATE. 
 
 367 
 
 vaunting llicir reverence for its sacred principles of love and mercy; by 
 men with long faces and sanctimonious appearance, who gave themselves 
 forth as models of righteousness; by men, too, who had just escaped the * 
 lash of religious persecution, inflict(?d on them hy brother ProtestanU in 
 Europe, and who should have learned more enlarged and liberal principles 
 in the rough school of suffering! These men are held up by their pos¬ 
 terity as the very paragons of perfection ; and yet their jmblic acts exhibit 
 them in a different light altoo’ether. 
 
 O O \ 
 
 . But the Blue Laws have been modified or repealed. True; but no 
 thanks are due to the Puritans for the better system of legislation which 
 now obtains in New England. The amelioration was forced on them by 
 circumstances of imperative necessity; by circumstances which it would 
 have been vain in them to have attempted either to resist or to control. It 
 ’Was surely no merit of theirs, that the odious principle of a^union of church 
 and state was annulled. The constant influx of European emigration, of 
 persons belonging to all sects, or to no sect, soon left them in the minority, 
 and compelled them to return to more liberal principles. The abroga¬ 
 tion of the Blue Laws, we repeat it, was brought about not by the 
 Puritans, but in spite of the Puritans. ' . 
 
 i Nor let us be told, that they did but act out the principles of their age; 
 and that they were not alone in narrow-mindedness. Even if it were so, 
 it Avould scarcely be a valid apology for men, of whom we are constantly 
 informed that they were in advance of their age. The truth is, they were 
 ,in advance of their age ; but it was in selfishness, in intolerance, and in 
 bigotry. There were Blue Laws in many of the other colonies, but they 
 were few, and exceptions to the general order of things; New England 
 was the very paradise of Blue Laws,—the soil in which they were indig¬ 
 enous, and in which they flourished most. We look in vain for a large 
 collection of such laws, even in the Protestant colonies of New York, 
 Virginia, and South Carolina, in all of which, however, principles of 
 proscription for conscience sake were openly avowed and occasionally acted 
 on. We could easily establish this, by giving a brief summary of the 
 various Blue Laws enacted by those colonies, as furnished us by our 
 anonymous “ Antiquarian.” But our narrow limits will not allow us, at 
 present, to go into the comparison ; nor do we deem it at all necessary to do 
 so. All who have ever glanced at the distinctive characteristics of our early 
 colonial legislation, will readily admit that New England was manifestly 
 in advance of all the other sections of the country in all that was blue and 
 fanatical. In all this she stood alone and unrivaled.’ 
 
 1 We have not space to enumerate the various Blue Laws of the other colonies. We present the 
 following e.arly laws of Virginia, as a specimen of them : 
 
 In March. 1623, it was enacted by the general assembly of Virginia, “that whosoever shall absent him- 
 selfe from divine service any Sunday without an allowable excuse, shall forfeite a pound of tobacco, 
 and he that absenteth himselfe a mouth shall forfeite fifty pounds of tobacco.” 
 
 It was further enacted, “ that no minister be absent from his church, above two months in all the 
 yeare, upon penalty of forfeiting halfe his means, and whosoever shall be absent above foure months 
 in the yeare shall forfeite his whole means and cure.” 
 
 “ That no man dispose of any of his tobacco before the minister be satisfied, upon pain of forfeiture 
 
Date Du» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ) 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

f 
 
 
 r f I 
 
 f 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 A 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 I ' 
 
 f 
 
 \ . 
 
 r^; 
 
 i. 
 
 
 ■» 
 
 
 Jr" 
 
 1 
 
 ( 
 
 I 
 
 -Y 
 
 I 
 
 r 
 
 V 
 
 \ 
 
 N 
 
 
 ,v 
 
 •^ . ■ 
 
 X 
 
 I 
 
 ■'\'y 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 Vv 
 
 i 
 
 » 
 
 \. 
 
 
 » 
 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 Sis 
 
 > •'^ 
 
 
 tv 
 
 
 
BOSTON COLLEGE 
 
 69135 
 
 UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS 
 CHESTNUT HILL, MASS. 
 
 Books may be kept for two weeks and may 
 be renewed for the same period, unless re¬ 
 served. 
 
 Two cents a day is charged for each book 
 kept overtime. 
 
 If you cannot find what you want, ask the 
 Librarian who will be glad to help you. 
 
 The borrower is responsible for books drawn 
 on his card and for all fines accruing on the 
 same. 
 
 

 
 r.'.C'*! 
 
 
 
 2; ■ 0 
 
 
 c< 
 
 1 c< 
 
 % 
 
 h 
 
 V ^ 
 
 vC^ 
 
 
 . c«r <