« PreviousContinue »
what will seem needless novelties in the specimens he has given here. It is a little odd to read how “ Jeva of gods planted a park [forest] in Eden of the east”; and it is a blunt rendering that turns the “ark of gopher-wood” into a "chest of pine-trees.” Of the Mosaic laws we are frankly told that “ many of them are excellent, some are frivolous, and several of them are monstrous"; and, in allusion to the striking of the rock at Massah, we are reminded that “ God still gives us water from the rock at the touch of chisel and rods." Mr. Sawyer is thoroughly in earnest in the work he has proposed to himself. He has won the ear of a public that already counts its ten thousands. And, in a field so large and difficult as that of popularizing a view of Scripture somewhat more in accordance with scholarship and sound sense than the dogmatism so long prevalent, he has shown some of the best qualities of a pioneer.
The famous Discourse of M. Renan,* which was hailed with so much enthusiasm by a crowd of students, is rescued from the censure of the police and the priesthood by the numerous editions which have scattered it widely among the people. It is in every respect a noble utterance of a true philosopher. It has no lack of the spirit of reverence, though it has all the freedom of impartial science. Of course, it is not Christian according to the Catholic standard. Its theology is what we should call Unitarian, and its portrait of Jesus might have been taken from the works familiar in the reading of our body. But the tone of the Discourse is in no sense sectarian. It is just what it professes to be, an appropriate Introduction to a Course of Lectures on the Semitic Dialects,” — and the speculations are such as would naturally occur. We are by no means ready to allow that all the opinions expressed as to the relative gifts of the Aryan and the Semitic races to the world are tenable. There is an element of theorizing and fancy in what is said about the idolatrous natures of the Aryans and the monotheism of the Semitic peoples. If the Scriptures, not to say the profane histories, are to be trusted, there was idolatry of the worst kind among the Phenicians and the Egyptians ; and even the Hebrews were with difficulty restrained from tbis tendency to adopt and worship foreign gods. The argument of M. Renan is what the late Mr. Buckle would call “ deductive." It reasons from a previously formed theory, and is not quite justified by a view of all the facts. The theory may be true, but the pleading of M. Renan has not yet proved it.
M. Renan is fast becoming a power in the intellectual world of France. Even those who denounce his “infidelity” — his “atheism," as some of them call it
are compelled to admire his calm confidence in the truth which he holds, and his bold persistence amid the threats and against the insinuations of his enemies. The Catholic Church has no foe so dangerous as this man of science, whose learning and whose courage are lifted above it with such constant menace.
* De la Part des Peuples Sémitiques dans l'Histoire de la Civilization. Dis. cours d'Ouverture du Cours de Langues Hébraïque, Chaldaïque, et Syriaque, au Collège de France. Par M. ERNEST RENAN, Membre de L'Institut. Paris : M. Lèvy Frères. 1862. 8vo. pp. 30.
From no one could a tribute to the great Dominican more worthily come than from his early friend, his companion in studies, his associate in dangers and privations, his defender against persecutors, and the champion with him at once of liberty and the Catholic Church. Montalembert is the fit eulogist of Lacordaire, knowing him thoroughly, loving him ardently, sympathizing with his ideas, and admiring with enthusiasm his extraordinary gifts. The eloquent volume * in which the Academician celebrates the glory of the monk and the orator is evidently an outpouring which could not be repressed. It is a spontaneous and unforced offering of a sorrowing heart to the memory of one precious beyond all estimate. It is a narrative, a vindication, and a panegyric. The few faults which the writer allows to bis hero are only the shade to bring out more strongly the shining virtues. If we may believe Montalembert, in the death of this fiery preacher the Church and the
age have lost one of the few great men whom God has sent in these degenerate days, - one who was equally a saint and a prophet, wonderful in sagacity, inspired in utterance, beautiful in temper, holy in life, and a model, on every side, of amazing virtue. Not chiefly the genius of this master of speech, but the manliness and faith of this humble-minded Christian, are the burden of the book which his friend has written.
Of course, there must be exaggeration in this ; and it is quite improbable that men not in sympathy with Lacordaire's opinions will consent that one who could denounce so vehemently, and could use in his discourse such specious arts, is a saint according to the highest type. Yet it must be confessed that the extracts from speeches and letters, which are very skilfully woven into Montalembert's plea for his friend, seem to prove that the zealot was neither a bigot nor a fanatic. Lacordaire writes like a generous, fair-minded, and conscientious man, who loves rather than hates his enemies. If what Montalembert gives us in this volume fairly represents the general tone of Lacordaire's correspondence, he certainly deserves the admiration of all Christian souls. The volume, in any event, will set aside many prejudices which those who have only known Lacordaire through his orations in defence of the Church will naturally have formed. It is to be regretted that Montalembert could not have put in the frontispiece of his book an engraving of that remarkable face which no one who has seen it will erer forget, and which a writer in the Baptist Christian Review for July has described with such exuberance of epithet. And if any
find this notice of Montalembert's eulogy too tame, we commend them to the article in that Review, which almost exhausts the dictionary in its array of dazzling metaphors.
STRANGE revelations we have, in the series of tracts entitled “Facts for Churchmen,” † concerning the abuses which are tolerated, upheld,
* Le Père Lacordaire. Par LE COMTE DE MONTALEMBERT, l’Un des Quarante de l'Académie Française. Paris : Douniol. 1862. 12mo.
† Facts for Churchmen. First Series. Nos. 1-12. London: H. J. Tresidder. 8vo. pp. 44.
and promoted in that great Establishment which is styled the “bul. wark” of the English realm. Of course the first grievance is in the wide interval between the pay of a bishop and a curate. Twenty-eight bishops receive in the aggregate £ 155,000, or £5,535 a year on the average, while not less than ten thousand of the working clergy have an income which does not reach £ 100. The annual income of the Bishop of London is $50,000, and the smallest annual reveune of any English bishop is $10,000. In Ireland, there are twelve bishops of the Established Church, the average income of whom is upwards of $ 27,000 annually. Yet these men have very little to do, most of the Irish people being Roman Catholic. Next to this immense iniquity in the matter of salaries is the outrageous expenditure on the palaces of the bishops. The Ecclesiastical Commission provided for a spiritual destitution in populous places by building a magnificent house for the Bishop of Ripon to live in, at an expense of $ 70,000, by purchasing an estate for the Bishop of Lincoln, at a cost of $ 250,000, and by the acquisition of Danbury Park for the Bishop of Rochester, for $ 140,000, not to add half a dozen cases of less extravagance. Now, of the places above mentioned, Rochester is well known from the description in the Pickwick Club, - a town dirty, decayed, and dull; Lincoln is simply a group of houses around an old Cathedral; and nobody would ever go to Ripon except to see the ruins of Fountains Abbey.
After bishops and their palaces, archdeacons are exhibited as the great scandal of the Church, doing their work mostly by deputy, holding the most profitable livings, and often two or more livings at once. Then there is the great absurdity of the cathedral staff, the deans and canons, leading a life of utter laziness, yet living upon the fat of the land, keeping up a farcical mummery of worship for which no one cares, and wasting their enormous revenues in discreditable self-indulgence and luxury. The tract entitled A Scene at Garraway's” very graphically exhibits an auction sale of a benefice, the incumbent of which is still living, though quite old. The right of presentation to this living is disposed of to the highest bidder, who of course will make such terms with the incumbent as to secure for himself half or three quarters of the revenue. Other abuses, such as the advowson market, nepotism, the slavery which the “ Canons” compel, are shown up with unsparing plainness, yet without vituperation. Such tracts as these, circulated at a half-penny apiece, among the lower classes, must have the effect to alienate them from a church which makes no effort to remove such inconsistencies, if not to exasperate them against such an outrage on their rights. The only remedy which the tracts propose is the adoption of the “voluntary” principle.
Joh. Joseph IGNAZ DÖLLINGER is reported to be one of the most learned of living Catholic theologians. Appropriately born in Bamberg, in 1799, he was made Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Munich in 1826. That professorship he now holds. He has had some political experience as representative of the University in the Bavarian Parliament, and in 1848 was sent, by a small electoral dis
trict, to the National Assembly at Frankfort. In 1851, he gave up his place in the Bavarian Assembly, to which he had been a second time elected, and has since, we believe, confined himself to his professional duties. He is known to the world of art by his publication, with explanations, of Cornelius's Compositions from the Paradiso of Dante, in 1830, and to the narrower world of theology by his very elaborate Handbook of Ecclesiastical History, and other publications. In the Parliament at Frankfort, as elsewhere, he has strenuously maintained the principle that the Church should be independent of the State.
During the last April he had occasion to give certain prelections in Munich,* in which he set forth again this somewhat unpalatable doctrine. He was heard with the warmest interest, warmer than we, who dwell in a colder land of established and disintegrating Protestantism, can readily conceive. And not in Munich only, or in Germany, but in France also, and in England, his words have found an echo. So emphatic declarations touching the temporal power of the Pope on the part of a Catholic theologian, we do not remember ever before to have met. As illustrative of the historical tendency of the time, Döllinger's argument is not without value. And he is not the wise man who, wrapping himself in his own conceits, refuses his human sympathy for honest, human struggling among any people.
The Catholic Church is not a creation, it is a growth, and the truth which underlies it no Protestantism will ever shake. That truth keeps it up, and will keep it up till Protestants and Catholics, recognizing each other's aims and each other's truth, shall draw together into one primal Christian church, as of old, of Protestant purity and Catholic faith.
After some preliminary observations, Döllinger addresses himself to the absorbing question of the hour touching the States of the Church, - whether the papal chair shall stand somewhere upon the ground, or be left hanging anywhere in the air. First, then, are territorial possessions indispensably necessary to the Church? The intelligible answer of history is, that for seven hundred years the Church existed without possessing a single village. Afterwards, when whole provinces had been bestowed upon the Pope, from the ninth to the fifteenth century, with the exception of short intervals, the Popes were never in quiet possession of their lands; - the most powerful of them, Gregory VII. and Urban II., died on foreign soil. In 1260, when the papacy had reached the height of its ecclesiastical and political power, there were but two places in which, according to the declaration of the Pope himself, the papal chair could exist in safety, — Viterbo and Avignon. For centuries Rome was too unquiet for the residence of the Popes. It is only about three hundred and fifty years ago since the Popes first acquired firm possession of their territory; but what are three centuries out of eighteen?
Again, the Pope is an elective prince; and the principle of election
Lectures on the Temporal Power of the Pope. By Joh. Josepi Igxaz DÖLLINGER. Munich. 1862.
has been found as salutary in the Church as defective in the State. All electoral forms of government have perished, — the papacy remains. In the former there was wanting that element of loyalty wbich binds the people to the ruling house. In the States of the Church the Pope was, at the least, a stranger to the people, often a foreigner; often, also, aged when elected, his reign was brief, and took no root in the people; and with each new Pope there was often a change in the system of government. Hence many distinguished sons of the Church have been led to the conclusion, that it would be better for the Pope if he did not occupy this double position of head of the Church and of the State.
Of a truth, the papal rule has been of the mildest, and after thirty years of revolution much real freedom exists still in the States of the Church, affirms Döllinger; — and yet, undeniably, for forty years there has been the greatest discontent in the population of the cities, which in the absence of a peasant class, particularly in the papal provinces, control the land. At times their revolutionary ferment has broken out into active rebellion, and from year to year the weakness of the pa pal government has increased. When Pius IX., on entering upon his pontificate, granted more liberal institutions, he only excited his ene. mies to greater activity; and so it came about that, since 1849, two foreign powers, Austria and France, have garrisoned Rome; and the city which claimed the spiritual jurisdiction of the earth was sunk in the lowest political degradation. For ten years, according to the testimony of the English agent in Rome, Pius IX. was unwearied in introducing reforms, but he failed to overcome the deep opposition to his government which was rooted in the greater part of the people ; no conservative elements came to bis aid; he could not create an army of his own, and the presence of foreign soldiers irritated the populace the more. What the English agent said in 1856, that there was no class upon which the papal government could rely, that in the moment of danger no hand would be lifted to help it, the latest events have verified. Not in the States of the Church alone, but in all Italy, are the enemies of the papacy. The public opinion of all Italy is against the temporal power of the Pope, as the chief hinderance to the ideal of a united Italian kingdom. And nowhere is this longing to take a place among the great powers of Europe stronger than in Italy. It cannot be denied, that at this hour the union of temporal and spiritual power is in opposition to the general feeling of Europe. In former centuries, also, the ecclesiastical principalities in Germany perished rather from the operation of public opinion than from political storms. · In 1814, not one voice was raised in favor of their restoration. In the States of the Church this union is an element of weakness, not of strength; not because the sentiment of religion is weakened, but because the point of view of men has altered.
It is asked why this painful condition of things was not earlier felt in the States of the Church? In former times there was much less governing done; the corporation principle prevailed, and things gorerned themselves. This organization was destroyed by Napoleon I.,