|
Socialism and the Church by Orestes A. Brownson
England the Civilizer;
her History developed in its Principles;
with Reference to the Civilizational History of Modern Europe, (America inclusive),
and with a View to the Denouement of the Difficulties of the Hour This handsomely printed volume, has been sent us "from the author," and we can do no less than acknowledge its reception. It is filled with the wild speculations and demoralizing theories hardly to be expected from "a Woman." In a literary point of view, it is beneath criticism, but ill bears the marks of some reading, and even of hard, though ill-directed, thinking. Nature has treated the author liberally, and she will have much to answer for. The work could have proceeded only from a strong mind and a corrupt heart. The work itself pertains to the Socialistic school, and, substantially, to the Fourieristic section of that school. According to it, the human race began its career in ignorance and weakness, and establish a false system of civilization. Modern society, dating from the fall of the Western Roman empire, has been engaged in a continual struggle to throw off that system, and to establish a true system in its place. It has been engaged, thus far, in the work of demolition, which it has finally terminated. It has prepared the ground for true civilization, and the human race now stand waiting, or did stand waiting on the first of 480 1848, the signal to introduce it, and to put an end for ever to all evils, moral, social, and physical. The old civilization, now effete, committed the capital error of recognizing religion,--in the language of the author, superstition,--governrment property) and "the ascendancy of the male sex," or family,--for the family cannot subsist without that acendency;--the new civilization will correct this error, and for religion, substitute science; for government, federation; for law, instinct; for property, communal wealth; for family, love; and for the ascendency of the male sex, the administration of women. Consequently, the new civilization is to be a Petticoat civilization, in which we must include the human race in those genera which are named after the female, as cows, geese, ducks, hens, &c. Into the details of this new civilization which it is to be introduced, or the means by whichi it is to be introduced and preserved, we need not enter. Some things may be assumed to be settled; if not, the human race can settle nothing and it is idle to examine the clains of a new theory. If any thing can be settled, it is that the man is the bead of the woman,--that she is for him, not he for her; and that relgion, government, family, property, are essential elements of all civilization. Without them man must sink below the savage, for in the lowest savage state we find, at least, some reminiscences of them. Any system which proposes their abolition or essential modification is by that fact alone condemned, and proved to deserve no examination. We do the Sociallsts too much honer when we consent to bear and refute their dreams. We have not at this late day to resettle the basis of society, to seek for unknown truth in religion or politics, in relation to public or domestic, private or social life; iwe have no new discoveries to make, no important changes to introduce; and all that we need attempt is to acertain the truth which has been known from the beginning, and to conform ourselves to it. Nevertheless, the work before us is a pregnant sign of the times, and may afford food for much useful reflection to those prepared to digest it. People attend to their own business, 481 tread the routine their fathers trod, and attempt to discharge in peace and quiet the practical duties of their state, little suspect what is fermenting in the heated brains of this nineteenth century. They know next to nothing of what is going on around them. They look upon the doctrines curtained in works like the one before us as the speculations of a few insane dreamers, and are sure that the good sense of mankind will prevent them from spreading, and confine their mischief to the individuals who put them forth. They regard them as too ridiculous, as too absurd, to be believed. They can do no harm, and we need not trouble our heads about them. This is certainly a plausible view of the subject, but, unhappily, there is nothing too ridiculous or too absurd to be believed, if demanded by the dominant spirit or sentiment of an age or country; for what is seen to be demanded by that spirit or sentiment never appears ridiculous or absurd to those who are under its influence. Nothing, to a rightly instructed mind, is more ridiculous or absurd than the infidelity which so extensively prevailed in the last century and which under another form prevails equally in this. Yet when the philosophy which necessarily implied it first made its appearance, few comparatively took the alarm, and even learned and sound Churchmen were unable to persuade themselves that there was any serious danger to be apprehended. When the philosophers and literary men went farther, and, developing that philosophy, actually made free with the Scriptures, and even the mysteries of faitb, the majority of those who should have seen what was coming paid little attention to them, jested at the incipient incredulity with great good humor, felt sure that no considerable number of persons would proceed so far as to deny not only the Church, but the very existence of God, and flattered themselves that the infidelity which was manifest would prove only a temporary fashion, a momentary caprice, which would soon become weary of itself, and evaporate. Nevertheless, all the while, the age was virtually infidel, and thousands of those who had persisted in believing there was no danger were themselves but shortly after driven 482 into exile, or brought to the guillotine by its representatives. The same thing occurs now in regard to Socialism. The great body of those who have faith and sound principles look upon it as the dream of a few isolated individuals, as undeserving a moment's attention, and think it a waste of time and breath even to caution the public against it. Yet in one form or other it has already taken possession of the age, has armed itself for battle, made the streets of Paris, Berlin, Frankfort, Vienna, and other cities, run with blood, and convulsed nearly the whole civilized world. It is organized all through Europe and the United States; scarcely a book, a tract, or a newspaper is issued from a constantly teeming press, that does not favor it, and there is scarcely any thing else going that can raise a shout of applause from the people; and yet we are told, even by grave men, that is a matter which need excite no apprehension. Nor is this the worst aspect of the case. Not a few of those who shrink with horror from Socialism, as drawn out and set forth by its avowed advocates, do themselves, unconsciously, adopt and defend the very principles of which it is only the logical development; nay, not only adopt and defend those principles, but denounce, as behind their age, as the enemies of the people, those who call them in question. Have we not ouselves been so denounced? If you doubt it, read the criticisms of The Boston Pilot on our review of Padre Ventura's Oration, or The New York Commercial Advertiser's notice of our censure of the Italian Liberals for their persecution of the Jesuits. Of course, these papers have no authority of their own, but they echo public opinion, and tell, as well as straws which way the wind blows. If the public condemned in no measured terms the "horrible doctrines" we a few years since put forth in an Essay on the Laboring Classes, it has not condemned, but through some of its leading organs commended, an article on The Distribution of Property, published in The North American Review for July, 1848, the most conservative periodical, except our own, in the country,--which defends at length, and with more ability than we ordinarily expect in that Journal, the 483 very principles from which we logically derive them. We hold now in utter detestation the doctrines of the Essay referred to and which raised a terrible clamor against us throughout the country; but we proved, in our defence, and no one his yet, to our knowledge, ventured to maintain the contrary, that those doctrines were only legitimate conclusions from the Protestant and democratic premises held by the great body of our countrymen, and by what they do and must regard as the more enlightened portion of mankind. In fact, a very common objection to us was, that we were ahead of the age, that is, drew the conclusions before the people were ready to receive them. We did but reason logically from the principles we had imbibed from public opinion, from general literature, and the practical teachings of those we had been accustomed from our childhood to hear mentioned with honor, and had been required to revere,--principles, which we had never heard questioned, and never thought of questioning, till we undertook to explain to ourselves the universal outcry which had been raised against us. As we found our countrymen saying two and two, we thought we might innocently add, two and two make four, and complete the proposition. We were wrong, not in our logic, but in our principles. We had trusted the age; we had confided in its maxims, and received them as axioms. As the mists cleared away, as the gloss of novelty wore off, and the excitement of self-defence subsided, we saw the horrible nature of the doctrines we had put fortb, and recoiled, not only from them, but from the principles of which they were the necessary logical development. But the age has not followed our example. The great body of the people continue to adhere to those principles, and will not suffer them to be questioned. No doubt, the majority Of numbers are as yet unprepared to adopt Socialism as developed by Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Cabet, Proudhon, or by "A Woman" in the work before us; but no man who has studied the age can, if he have any tolerable powers of generalization, doubt that Socialistic principles are those now all but universally adopted. They are at the bot- 484 tom of nearly all hearts, and at work in nearly all minds; and just in proportion as men acquire courage enough to say not only two and two, two and two, but that two ind two make four, the age rushes to their practical realization,--accepts their logical developments, however horrible, however impious. There is an invincible logic in society which pushes it to the realization of the last consequences of its principles. In vain do moderate men cry out against carrying matters to extremes, in vain do practical men appeal to common sense; in vain do brave men rush before the movement and with their bodies attempt to interpose a barrier to its onward progress. Society no more--nay, less--than individuals recoils from the conclusions which follow logically from premises it holds to be sound and well established. It draws practically those conclusions, with a terrible earnestness, and a despotism that scorns every limitation. On it moves, heedless of what or of whom it may crush beneath the wheels of its ponderous car. Woe to him who seeks to stay its movement! Social evils grow as it advances, and these it lays to the charge of those who would hold it back, and result, it maintains, only from the fact that it has not yet reached its goal. The reform is not carried far enough. Put on more steam, carry it farther, carry it farther, is the loud cry it raises. We see this in the Protestant Reformation. The reformers did not fulfil their promises, did not secure to the people the good they had led them to expect. Everybody saw this, everybody felt it; for everybody found himself distracted and unsatisfied. What was the inherence drawn? That the Reformers had erred in principle, and that the Reformation could not secure the good promised? By no means. The people had accepted its principle. The Reform, said they, is good, is just and true; but it has not been carried far enouoh; the Reformers were only half reformed; they stopped short of the mark. The Reform must not stop with Luther and Calvin; we must carry it farther. This is what the children of the Reformation said, as we all know; and they have been from the first strug- 485 gling to carry it farther and farther, and have at length carried it to the borders, if not into the regions, of nihility. The evils remain, nay, every day increase, and each day a new party rises up in the bosom of the most advanced sect, and demands a further advance. In the political world we see the same thing. Revolution has followed revolution, and no political reform goes far enough to satisfy its friends. In the last century, revolutions were political, and had for their object the establishment of political equality, or democracy. It was soon seen that political equality answers no purpose where there is social inequality. A writer, who could speak with as much authority on this subject as any of our contemporaries, thus expressed himself in 1841:- "But democracy as a form of government, political democracy, as we call it, could not be the term of popular aspiration. Regarded in itself, without reference to any thing ulterior, it is no better than the aristocratic form of government, or even the monarchical. Universal suffrage and eligibility, the expression of perfect equality before the state, and which with us are nearly realized, unless viewed as means to an end, are not worth contending for. What avails it, that all men are equal before the state, if they must stop there? If under a democracy, aside from mere politics, men may be as unequal in their social condition as under other forms of government, wherein consists the boasted advantages of your democracy? Is all possible good summed up in suffrage and eligibility? Is the millennium realized, when every man may vote and be voted for? Yet this is all that political democracy, reduced to its simplest elements, proposes. Political democracy, then, can never satisfy the popular mind. This democracy is only one step--a necessary step--in its progress. Having realized equality before the state, the popular mind passes naturally to equality before society. It seeks and accepts political democracy only as a means to social democracy; and it cannot fail to attempt to realize equality in men's social condition, when it has once realized equality in their political condition." --The Boston Quarterly Review, January, 1841, pp. 113, 114. Political democracy leaves the principal social evils unredress- 486 ed, and the causes which led the reform thus far remain in all their force to carry it still farther. Hence we see in the present century the same party which in the last demanded political democracy attempting throughout nearly the whole civilized world a series of revolutions in favor of social democracy. The leaders in the late French Revolution tell you that it was a social revolution they sought, and that it was this fact which distinguisbed it from the Revolution of 1789. In Italy and Germany two revolutions are going on at once, a political revolution and a social revolution. Young Italy is socialistic; so is Young Germany; and it was its socialistic character that gave to the movement of Ronge and his associates its significance and its moderate success. The race, modern philosophers tell us, is progressive, and in a certain sense we concede it. It tends invariably to reach the end implied in the principles it adopts or the impulse it has received, and that tendency is never self-arrested. Its progress towards that end is irresistible; and when it happens to be downward, as at present, it is fearfully rapid, and becomes more fearfully rapid in proportion to the distance it decends. The only possible remedy is, not declamation against the horrible results, the pernicious conclusions, at which the popular mind arrives,--the resource of weak men,--but the correction of the popular premises and recalling the people to sound first principles. Once concede that even political equality is a good, an object worth seeking, you must concede that social equality is also a good; and social equality is necessarily the annihilation of religion, government, property, and family. The same principle which would justif the Moderate Republicans of France in dethroning the king would justify M. Proudhon in making war on property, declaring every rich man a robber, and seeking to exterminate the bourgeoisie, as these have already exterminated the nobility. There is no stopping-place between legitimacy--whether monarchical or republican legitimacy--and the most ultra Socialism. Once in the career of political reform,--we say political, not administrative, reform,--we are 487 pledged to pursue it to its last results. We are miserable cowards, or worse, if we shrink from the legitimate deduction from our own premises. There is not a meaner sin than the sin of inconsequence,--a sin against our own rational nature which distinguishes us from the mere animal world. If we adopt the Socialistic premises, we must go on with the Socialists in their career of destruction; nay, we shall be compelled to do so, or strew the battle-field with our dead bodies. If we recoil from the Socialistic conclusions, we must reexamine our own premises, and reject distinctly, unreservedly, and heroically every Socialistic principle we may have unwittingly adopted, every Socialistic tendency we may have unintentionally cherished. The people, it is well known, do not discriminate, do not perceive, until it is too late, the real nature and tendency of their principles. They mix up truth and falsehood, and can hardly ever be made to distinguish the one from the other. They adopt principles which appear to them sound and wholesome, and which under a certain aspect are so, and, unconscious of aiming at what is destructive, they place no confidence in any who tell them they expose themselves to danger. They see no connection between their principles and the conclusions against which we warn them, and which they at present, as well as we, perhaps view with horror; they therefore conclude that the connection we assert is purely imaginary, that we ourselves are deceived, or have some sinister purpose in asserting it; that we are wedded to the past, in love with old abuses, because, perbaps, we profit, or hope to profit, by them; that we do not understand our age, are narrow and contracted in our views, with no love or respect for the poorest and most numerous class. In a word, they set us down as rank conservatives or aristocrats. No age ever comprehends itself, and the people, following its dominant spirit, can never give an account of their own principles. They never trace them out to their last results, and are unable to follow the chain of reasoning by which horrible consequences are linked to premises which appear to them innocent. They never see whither they are going. Democratic philoso- 488 phers themselves tell us is much, and defend their doctrine on the, ground that the people are directed by divine instincts and obey a wisdom which is not their own. To this effect we may quote the writer already cited, and who, on this point, wis among the more moderate of his class In an article on Philosophy and Common Sense, which has the honer to be commended by Victor Cousin, he says:-- "Philosophy is not needed by the masses; but they who separate themselves from the masses, and who believe that the masses are entirely dependent on them for truth and virtue, need it, in order to bring them back and bind them again to universal Humanity. And they need it now, and in this country, perhaps as much as ever. The world is filled with commotions. The masses are heaving and rolling like a mighty river, swollen with recent rains, and snows dissolving on the mountains, onward to a distant and unknown ocean. There are those among us, who stand awe-struck, who stand amazed. What means this heaving and onward rolling? Whither tend these mighty masses of human beings? Will they sweep away every fixture, every house and barn, every mark of civilization? Where will they end? In what will they end? Shall we rush before them and attempt to stay their progress? Or shall we fall into their ranks and on with them to their goal? 'Fall into their ranks; be not afraid; be not startled; a divine instinct guides and moves onward that heaving and rolling mass; and lawless and destructive as it may seem to you, ye onlookers, it is normal and holy, pursuing, a straight and harmless direction on to the union of Man with God.' So answers philosophy, and this is its glory. The friends of Humanity need philosophy, as the means of legitimating the cause of the people, of proving that it is the right, and the duty, of every man to bind himself to that cause, and to maintain it in good report and in evil report, in life and in death. They need it, that they may prove to these conservatives, who are frightened almost out of their wits at the movements of the masses, and who are denouncing them in no measured terms, that these movements are from God, and that they who war against them are warring against truth, duty, God, and Humanity. They need it, that they may no longer be obliged to make apologies for their devotion to the masses, their democratic sympathies and tendencies. They who are persecuted for righteousness sake, who are loaded with reproach 489 for their fidelity to truth and duty, who are all but cast out of the pale of Humanity, because they see, love, and pursue Humanity's true interests,--they need it, that they may comprehend the care of the opposition they meet, forgive their enemies, silence the gainsayer, and give to him that asks it a reason for the hope that is in them. The friends ot progress, here and everywhere, need it, that, having vindicated, legitimated progress, as philosophers, they may go into the saloons, the universities, the halls of legislation, the pulpit, and abroad among the people, and preach it, with the dignity and the authority of the prophet."--The Boston Quarterly Review, January, 1838, pp. 104, 105. It is necessary to take this ground, or give up democracy, which Mr. Bancroft defines "Eternal Justice ruling through the people," as wholly indefensible; for it cannot be denied that popular movements are blind, and that in them the people are borne onward whither they see not, and by a force they comprehend not. Hence it is easy to understand, that, retaining in their memories traces of former instructions, they may recoil with horror from the last consequences of Socialism, and yet be intent only on developing Socialistic tendencies, and crushing all opposition to them. Socialism is, moreover, presented in a form admirably adapted to deceive the people, and to secure their support. It comes in Christian guise, and seeks to express itself in the language of the Gospel. Men whom this age delights to honor have called our blessed Lord "the Father of Democracy," and not few or insignificant are those who tell us that he was "the first Socialist." In this country, the late Dr. Channing took the lead in reducing the Gospel to Socialism; and in France, the now fallen Abbe de la Mennais, condemned by Gregory the Sixteenth, of immortal memory, was the first, we believe, who labored to establish the identity of Socialism and Christianity. We gave in another place, in 1840, a brief notice of his views on this point, which it may not be uninstructive to reproduce: "The most remarkable feature in the Abbe de la Mennais's doctrine of liberty is its connection with religion. It is well 490 known, that for some time the friends of freedom in Europe have been opposed to the Church, and in general to all religion. The privileged orders have also taken great pains to make it widely believed, that religion requires the support of existing abuses, and that no one can contend for social meliorations without falling into infidelity. This has created a false issue, one which M. de la Mennais rejects. He his endeavored, and with signal success, to show that there is no discrepancy between religion and liberty; nay, more, that Christianity offers a solid foundation for the broadest freedom, and that, in order to be true to its spirit, its friends must labor with all their might to restore to the people their rights, and to correct all social abuses. He proves that all men are equal before God, and therefore equal one to another. All men have one Father, and are therefore brethren, and ought to treat one another as brothers. This is the Christian law. This law is violated, whenever distinction of races is recognized; whenever one man is clothed with authority over his equals; whenever one man, or a number of men, are invested with certain privileges, which are not shared equally by the whole. As this is the case everywhere, everywhere therefore is the Christian law violated. Everywhere therefore is there suffering, lamentation. The people everywhere groan and travail in pain, sighing to be delivered from their bondage into the glorious liberty of the sons of,God. To this deliverance the people have a right. For it every Christian should contend and they wrong their brethren, deny Christianity, and blaspheme God, who oppose it. It may not be amiss to place by the side of this bold commendation of the Words of a Believer, the judgment pronounced upon that book and its doctrines by the Sovereign Pontiff, in his Encyclical Letter, dated June, 1834, which we find in the Pieces Justificatives, published by M. de la Mennais at the end of his volume entitled, Affaires de Rome, Bruxelles, 1837: "Horruimus sane, venerabiles Fratres, vel ex prime oculorum obtutu, auctorisque caecitatem miserati intelleximus, quonain scientia prorumpat, quae non secundum Deum sit, sed secundum mundi elementa. Enimvero contra fidem sua illa declaratione solemniter datam, captiosissimis ipse ut plurimum verborum, fictionumque involucris, oppugnandam, evertendamque suscepit catholicam doctrinam, quam memoratis Dostris litteris,*491 tum de debita erga potestates subjectione, tum de arcenda a populis exitiosa indifferentismi contagione, deque frenis injiciendis evaganti opinionum sermonumque licentiae, turn demum de damnanda omnimodo consciedtiae libertate, teterrimaque societatum, vel ex cujuscumque falsae religionis cultoribus, in sacrae et publicae rel perniciem conflatarum conspiratione, pro auctoritate humilitati nostrae tradita definivimus. We hope the judgment of the IToly Father will weigb as much with our readers as that of the Editor of The Boston Q artei-ly Review. We had for a time the unenviable honor of bein(r ranked ourselves among those who attempted here and elsewhere to translate Christianity into Socialism. There ai@e, y@erli,ips, yet living, persons who remember the zeal and perseverance with which we preached, in the name of the Gospel, the inos. damnable radicalism. We cite a few paragraphs from an essay entitled -Democracy of Christ;anity, published in The Boston Quarterly Review, October, 183S. 11 Tn a civil and political sense, we cannot discover that the Church regards Christianity in any other light than that of a curb, a bit, a restraint, a means by which the people may'5e kept in order and in submission to their masters. The clergy, under this point of view, are a sort of constabulatorv force at the service of the police, and ineeting-houses a substitute for police offices, houses of correction, and penitentiaries. Far be it from us to dclii, the great worth of Cliristianitv in this respect. IVe acknowledge the virtue-@ of the Church, as an agent of the police; but we hol)e we may be allowed to believe that Christianiky require-, the Church to possess other and far higher virtues. it should not merely keep the people in subjection to an order of thiiags which is, @ut fire them with the spi'rit and the -energy 494 to creite a social order, to which it gliall need no constabulatoy3 force, lay or clerical, to make the millions sub issive.498 The general doctrine asserted in this last extract was not peculiar to the writer cited. He was never reinirkable for his originality. He was rei-nai-kable, if for any thing, only for the care with Nvbich he studied the movement party of our times, seized its great principles, and abandoned Iiimsel ' f to their direction. Ile accepted that party, and followed it, with a coura(re and i-severance worthy o@ a bettet- cause. The views be put forth were those of his party. They were Dot peculiar to him then, and they are far less so now. During the last ten or twelve years they have made fearful progress, both at home and abroad. Affecting to be Christian, their advocates invoke the name of Jesus and appeal to the holy Scriptures, the texts of which, with a perverse ingenuity, they accommodate to their Socialistic purpose. May Al ighty God forgive us the share we had in propagating what we called the De2nocracy oj Cliristianity! We have nothing to palliate our offence or to bide, our shame; for, if we knew no better at the time, we might have known better, and our ignorance was culpable. All we can say is, we followed the dominant sentiment of the age. which is a poor excuse for one who professed to be a preacher of the Gospel. Veiling itself under Christian forms, attemptino, to distinguish 499 between Christianity and the Church, claimino, for itself tbQ authority and immense popularity of the Gosl)(-@l, denotinci@,i(, Christianity in the name of Christianity, discarding the Bible in the name of the Bible, and defying God in the name of God, Socialism conceals from the undiscriminating multitude its true cl)aracter, and, appealing to the dominant sentiment of the a(re and to some of our strongest natural inclinations and passions, it asserts itself with terrific power, and rolls on in its career of devastation and death with a force that human beings, in themselves, are impotent to resist. Men are assimilated to it by all the power of their own nature, and by all their reverence for religion. Their very faith and charity are perverted, and their noblest sympathies and their sublimest hopes are made subservient to their basest passions and their most grovelling propensities. Here is the secret of the strength of Socialism, and here, is the principal source of its danger. The open denial of Christianity is not now to be dreaded; the incredulity of the last century is now in bad taste, and can work only under disguise. All the particular heresies which human pride or human perversity could invent are now effete or unfashionable. Every article in the Creed has been successively denied, and the work of denial can go no fartlier. The attempt to found a new sect on the denial of any particular al-ticle of faith would now only cover its authors with ridicule. The ao-e laughs at Protestantism, and scorns sectarism@ The spirit that works in the children of disobedience must, therefore, affect to be Christian, more Christian than Christianity itself, and not only Christian, but Catholic. It can manifest itself now, and gain 4-iends, only by acknowledging the Church and all Catholic symbols, and substituting for the divine and heavenly sense in which they have hitherto been understood a human ,find earthly sense. Hence the religious character which Socialism attempts to wear. It rejects in name no Catholic symbol; it only rejects the Catholic sense. If it finds fault with the actual Church, it is because she is not truly Catholic, does not understand herself, does not comprehend the profound sense Df 500 her own doctrines, fails to seize and expound the true Clirist7az idea as it lay in the mind of Jesus, and as this enlightened age is prepar,-,(l to receive it. The Christian symbol need, a new and a more Catholic interpretation, adapted to our staoa in universal progress. Where the old interpretation uses the words God, Church, and Heaven, vou must understand Hunianity, Society, and Earth you will then have the true Christian idea, and bi-ino, the Gospel down to the order of nature and within the scope of human reason. But while you put the human and earthly sense upon the old Catholic words, be careful and retain the words themselves. By taking care to do this, you can secure the support of the adherents of Christianity, who, if they meet their old familiar terms, will not miss their old, familiar ideas ; and thus you will be able to reconcile the old Catholic world and the new, and to go on with Iluinanity in her triumphant progress through the ao;es. Since it professes to be Christian, and really denies the faith, Socialism is a heresy ; and since by its interpretation it eviscerates the Catholic system of its entire meaning, it is the resume of all the particular heresies which ever have been or can be. The ingenuity of men, aided by the great Enemy of souls, can invent no further heresy. All possible heresies are here summed up and actualized in one universal heresy, on which the age is proceeding with all possible baste to erect a counterfeit Catholicity for the reception and worship of Antichrist as soon as he shall appear in person. 11 Descend," says De la Mennais, " to the bottom of things, an(-@l diseiigtge from the wavering thoughts, vain and fleeting opinions, accidentally mingled with it, the powei@ful principle which, without interruption, ferments in the bosom of society, and what find you but Christianity i@lf? What is it the people wish, what is it they claim, with a perseverance that never tires, and an ardor that DOtIliDg can damp ? Is it not the abolition of the reign of force, in order to substitute that of intelligence and right? Is it not the effective recognition and social realization of equalitv, inseparable from liberty, the nec. @ condition and essen@ial form of @hich, in the organiza- 501 ticrn of the state, is election, the first basis (f the Christian community.502 This is as artful as it is bold. It wears a piotis aspect it has divine words on its lips, and almost unction in its speech. It is not easy for the unlearned to detect its fallacy, and the great body of the people are prepared to receive it as Christian truth. We cannot deny it without seeming to them to be warring against the true interests o - f society, and also against the Gospel of our Lord. Never was heresy rinore subtle, more adroit, better fitted for success. How skilfully it flatters the people ? It is said, the saints sball judge the world. By the change of a word, the people are transformed into saints, and invested with the saintly character and office. How adroitly, too, it appeals to the people's envy and hatred of their superiors, and to their love of the world, without shocking their orthodoxy or wound. ing their piety! Surely Satan has here, in Socialism, done his best, almost outdone himself, and would, if it were possible., deceive the very elect, so that no flesh should be saved, What we have said will suffice to show the subtle and dangerous cbaract ' er of Socialism, and how, although the majority may recoil from it at present, if logically drawn out by its bolder and more consistent advocates, the aoe may nevertheless be really and thoroughly Socialistic. We know that the age seeks 'th all its energy, as the greatest, want of mankind, political and social reforms. Of this there is and can be no doubt. Analyze these reforms and the principles and motives which li,td to them, which induce. the people in our days to struggle for them, and you will find at the bottom of them all the assumptio.n, that our good lies in the natural order, and is not attainable by individual e effort. All we see, all we bear, all we read, from whatever quarter it comes, serves to prove that this @ the deep and settled conviction of the age. If it were no4 these revolutions in France, Italy, Germany, and elsewhere, would have no meaning, no principle, no aiin, and would be as insignificant as drunken rows in the streets of our cities. But the essence of Socialism is in this very assumption, that our good lies in the natural order, and is unattainable by indiYidual effort. Socialism bids us follow nature, instead of saying 503 with the Gospel, insist nature. Placing our good in the natural order, it necessarily restricts it to temporal (,Y-oods, the only good the order of nature can give. For it, then, evil is to want teiiiporal goods, and good is to possess them. But, in this sense, evil is not remediable or good attainable by individual effort. We depend on nature, which may resist us, and on the conduct of others, which escapes our control. Hence the necessity of social organization, in order to harmonize the interests of -.11 with the interest of each, and to enable each by the union c' all to compel Nature to yield him up the good she has in store for him. But all men are equal before God, and, since be is just, he is equal in regard to all. Then all have bqual rivers, -an equal right to exemption from evil, and an equal right to the possession of good. Hence the social organization must be such as to avert equal evil from all, and to secure to ewb an equal sl)are of temporal goods. Here is Socialism in a nutshell, following as a strictlv logical consequence from the principles or assumptions which the age adopts, and on which it everywhere acts. The systems drawn out by Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Cabet, Proudbon, or other,-, are mere attempts to realize Socialism, and i-nay or may not be ridiculous and absurd; but that is nothin- to the purpose, if you concede their principle. These men have done the best they could, and you have no right to censure them, as long as you agree with them in principle, unless you propose something better. Now we agree with De la Mennais, that Christianity has a political ,ind social character, and with the editor of The Boston Quarterly -Review, that Christianity seeks the good of man in this lif(, as well as in the life to come. We say with all our heart, " On the earth was he [our Lord] to found a Dew order of tbin(vs, to bring round the blissful ages, and to give to reno- vated man a foretaste of heaven. It was here the millions were to be blessed with a liean,en, as well as bearafter." No doubt of il. But in the new order and by it,-not out of it and in- deyf-ndently of it. Out of the new order and independently of it, the millions are, to say the least, no better off than it it did 504 Dot exist, and have no riaht to any portion of its blessings. The Socialists, when they attempt to press Christianity into theirservice,arebadlogicians. Theyareriahtwhentheytell us that our Lord came to found a new order of thiii-s, for he certainly did come for that purpose; they are right when they tell us that it is Christian to seek a heaven on earth for tl)e millions, for there is a Christian heaven here for all men, if they choose to accept it; but when they say this, they are bound to add that this heaven is in the now order established, and is to besoughtinitandbyobediencetoitsprinciples. ItisChristian to seek that order of happiness which Christianity proposes, by the means it prescribes; but to seek another order of happiness, and by other means, is not therefore necessarily Christian, and may even be antichristian. Ilere is the point they overlook, and which vitiates all their reasoiiinla. Let no one say that we allege that man must fore-o any good whileiilthisworldinordertogainheavenliereafter. Itwould be no great hardship, even if it were so; but our God deals muchnioreliberallywithus, and requiresus to -ive up, in order to secure heaven hereafter, only what malies our misery here. The Socialist is right in saying that there is good for us even in this world; his error iies in placing that good in the natural order,andinmakingitunattainablebyindividualeffort. Our goodliesnotinthenaturalorder,butinthesupernaturalorder, -intbatiieworderwhichourLordeametoestablish. Iiitliat order there is all the good we can conceive, and attainable by simple voluntary efforts. Out of that order there is no good attainable either by the efforts of individuals or by association, because out of it there is no good at all. Temporal goods, giving to the term the fullestpossible sense, are not good, and, sought for themselves, are productive only of evil. Here'is the first error of the Socialists. No evil is removable, no good is attainable, as long as any earthly or merely natural ep d is hold tobe,foritsownsake,alegitim,,ttoob,iectofpursuit. Thereis andeanbegoodfornoo@ne,hereorbereafter,saveinse--Iiin,-) excltis@el .y, the end for ivbich A lniighty God has intended us, 505 and by the means and in the war he himself has al)poiitel. Now this end is neither in this w,)rld nor of this world. neither in nature nor of nature, and therefore can be gained, can be promoted, by no natural effort, by no natural means,-neitlier by political changes nor by social changes, neither by I)olitica! democracy nor by social dernocracv. These things have and can have no necessary connection with it. It is a mistake, then, to regard them, in themselves, as ever in any degree desirable. The @ialists are right when they say that the Christian law is the law of liberty, but not therefore necessarily right when, they term the movements of the people for what they call liberty Christian movei-nents, origina*jng in Christian principle. Undoubtedly, the Christian law is the law of liberty. Our Saviour came to free us from bondage, and whom be makes free is free indeed. In the order be establishes, our highest good, our only good, whether for time or eterni@N-, -I$ mtirely independ@ ent of the world. Nothing in the universe can hinder us, against our will, from attaining to it. We have only to will it and it is ours, and we are always and everyivliere free to will. No one depends on nature or other men for the power to fulfil his destiny,--to gain the end for which be was intended. Ifere is the Christian doctrine of liberty, the glorious liberty which our religion reveals, and which we know by divine fa,.th is no deception. But the liberty the Socialistq commend, and which the people are seeking, is not Christian liberty, for it is not liberty atoll. Socialism, by its very principle, ensia,,-es us to nature and society, and subjects us to all the fluctuations of time and sense, According to it, man can q,ttain to true good, can gain the (,,nd for which he was made, only in a certain political Iii(I social order, which it depends on the millions, wlioirt the, indiviuual cannot control, to construct, and wl)icb, when ci)3,sti,ucteLl, may prove to be inconvenient and inadequate' and require to be pulled down and built up again. The individual, it teachefi us, can make no advance towards his destiny but in I)roportion as be secures the cooperation of his race. All Trie--, must bo brought down or brought up to the same level before I can go 506 to the end for which my God made me; -each man@,; tru6 gwft @ unattainable, till all men are prepared to take " a A strong pull, a long pull, and a pull altogether," to attainli,! This is slavery, net liberty. Nay, it denies the possibility of lib. erty, and makes slavery the necessary condition of all men. Is not hp a slave who, is 1-viained to nature for his good, or to a social organization which does not exist, and which depends on the wisdom, the fclly, the passions or instincts, the wbims or caprices of other men to create or to destroy ? Who can deny it? He only is free, be only knows what freedom is, who tramples the world beneath his feet, who is independent of all the accidents of time and space, of all created beings, and who has but to will and all heaven is his, and remains his, though the entire universe fall in ruins around him. Undoubtedly Christianity requires us to remove all evil, and in seeding to remove evil we follow the Christian principle ; bit what the Socialists call evil, and the people in revolt are seeking to remove, is not evil. Nothing is evil but that which turns a man away from his end, or interposes a barrier to his advance towards it. Nothing but one's own sin can do that. Nothing, then, but sin is or can be evil, and thit is evil only to him who commits it. Take all these things which Socialists declaim against,-monarchy, aristocracy, inequaltities of rank, inequalities of riches, poverty, want, distress, hunoer, starvation even,not one of them, in itself considered, is necessarily evil; not one of them, nor all of them combined, can barrn the just man, or prevent, except by his own will, any one from the fulfilmeiit of his destiny. If one is prepared to die, be may as well die in a hovel as a palace, of bunger as a fever. Nothing can barm us, that does Dot separate or tend to separate us from God. Nothing but our onvn internal malice can so separate us, and it is always in our power, through grace, which is never withheld, to remove that at will. Undoubtedly, also, Chrigtianity requires -us to mek not only to remove evil, but to promote good, and good in this world, is the object of the will, and we are always to lirol)ose it. 507 But the things the people in their insurrectionary movements are seeking after, and which Socialists commend, are not necessarily good. As there is no evil to the just, so is there no good to the sinner, while he continues in his sinful state. If the Socialists could secure to all men every thing they promise or dream of, they would secure them nothing to their advantage. Place every man at the highest social level that you can conceive; give him the most finished education you can devise; lavish on him in profusion this world's goods ; lodge him in the most splendid palace that genius can construct, furnished in the most tasteful and luxurious manner; let him be surrounded by the most beautiful scenes of nature and the choicest specimens of art; and let him have ample leisure and opportunity for travel, for social intercourse, and for the fullest and most barmonious development of all his natural faculties ;-you advance him not the millionth part of a hairsbreadth towards his destiny, avert from him no evil, secure him no conceivable good. It will be no consolation to the damned to recollect, that, while here, they were clothed in purple and fine linen, and fare(I sumptuously eve-ey day; and your rich men, your great and renowned men, your fide gentlemen and ladies, with the-,r polished manners and fashionable dresses, their soft complexions aD4 gentle speech, your accomplished artists, your brilliant poets, your eloquent orators, your learned scholars, your profound and subtile philosophers, as well as coarse artisans, ragged beggars, cross-grained old bags, and country bumpkins, will be damned, eternally damned, if they die ,vithout the grace of God; and that grace is as likely to flnd its way to the hovel as to the palace, to dwell beneath the beggar'-, gabardine as the embroidered mantle of the rich and refined. The bulk of the strongrninded and thrifty citizens of this republic, with all their political franchises, social advantages, universities, academies, common schools, meeting houses, external decorum, and material prosperity, are infinitely more destitute than those Neapolitan lazzaroni whose lot they deplore, and are in no rational sense one whit better off than the miserable miners and regraded 508 populace of Great Britain. Their possessions will add nothing to the fullness of their joy, if, by a miracle of mercy, they gain heaven, and will only render fiercer the flames of their tormen4 if they are doomed to hell, as they ba've every reason to fear will be the case. The Socialists fall into the fallacy of passing, in their reasoning, from one species to another. Nothing they call evil is evil ; nothing they call good is good; and hence, because Chistianity commands us to remove evil and seek good, it does not follow that we must associate with the disaffected populations to brin@)' about political tnd social reforms. All that is in any sense good or worth having the individual can always, under any political or social order, secure by a simple effort of his will. Forms of government and forms of social organization, then, are at best indifferent; Socialism is a folly, and Socicalists fools. The Creator is good, and Providence is wise and just. All external events take place by the express appointment of God. If, then, a single event were evil or the occasion of evil to a single individual, save throuoh that individual's own fault, the goodnees of the Creator would be denied, and the wisdom and justice of Providence could not be asserted. No doubt, there is evil in the world, far more heart-rending, far more terrific, than Socialists depic@ or even conceive; but to no man is there or can there be evil, but his own sin, which is purely his own ci-eatior. Since no man is obliged or compelled to sin, since sufficient grace is given unto every man to enable him to break )ff from sin and to become just, every man can, as far as himself is concerned, put an end to all evil, and secure all good, even the supreme Good it.-,elf, at any moment he pleases. Noth'ng, then, is i-nore idle than to pretend that political and social r-,,foi ms,touching the organization of the state or,of societv we mean, not those which touch administration-are or ever c-in be necessary as the condition of averting any evil or pro(ar;nz any good. We a,,rree, @ we have said, that our Lord came tc found a new order of things,-new in relation to that whi, h Obtained 509 among the beatben,-and that be contemplated the good of the Billions here as well as hereafter; we agree, nay, we hold, that he did propose the amelioration of the lot of man ever, while in this uoi-ld,-and not of one class only, but of all classes. But bow ? By his new order, or, irrespective of i@ by merely ,3a!iiii(r upon the people themselves to do it through political and social organizations If you sav the latter, you place him in the old order, and class him with the old heathen philosophers. If be asserts simply man's dependence on nature and social organization, he founds no new order, for this dependence was the precise basis of the old order. Mankind always bad nature and social organization, and to tell them to look to these for their good was to tell tbein nothing new; for this was precisely what they bad done, and were doing. The evil which oppressed the millions was in this very dependence, and what was needed was deliverance from it,-some method, so to speak, of attaining our true good in spite of nature and of social organization. If, then, he retains that dependence, and does not provide this method, what has he done, or what can he do, which a heathen pbilosopber might not have done? and wherein is what you call the Christian order different from Heathenism ? You say, be came to found a new order for the amelioration of mankind ; but bow can you say this, if you are to look for the amelioration, which you say be authorizes you to seek, not from any now order, but from nature and social organization, which is pr@ly, what the heathen themselves did ? If you say, on the other hand, as you must, if you assert the new order at all, that our Lord ameliorates the lot of mankind by his new order, then you must concede that it is only in and through that order that the ame' ioration is to be effe@d. Then you are to look for it only as you come into and conform to that order. Now, according to that order, the millions are to be blessed, are to find their true happiness, not in following nature, but in resisting it,-not in possessing temporal gocds, but in renouncino, them, not in pride and luxury, but in humility, pov. aty, and mortification@not in being solicitous for what -xe 510 sball cat, or what we sball drink, or wherewith we sball be cloth ed, " for after all these things do the heathen seek " (St Matt. vi. 31-34),-in a word, not in reeking any of these things, but in seeking first, that is, as the end of all seeking, the kinlrdom of God, and his justice, and then " all these tbidgs sball be added unto us." This is the order which our Lord has establisbed. He gives us all needed grace to come into this order and to comply with all its demands, and, if we come in and so comply, be promises us all good, a hundred fold in this world, and everlasting life in the world to come. Now, as you concede that our Lord came to establish a new order of tbidgs, and must concede, that if be blesses the millions at all, it must be in and by this new order, you are boand to admit that it is only by complying with its requisi@oons and placing ourselves under its influence, that our good in t his world, as well as in the next, is attainable. Then all your efforts by political and social changes, which imply a recurrence to the old order, a reliance on the principles of the heathen world, can only remove you farther and farther from your true good. The only way to attain that good must be to begin by an act of renunciation, the renunciation of heathenism, of the world, of self, or, what is the same thing, and act of unconditional surrender of ourselves to God. This, if you admit Christianity at all, is the indispensable condition of all good. The heatbeii sought their good from nature and social organization, -and found only evil. We are to seek not even. our own good, that is, for the simple reason that it is our good, but God himself, and God alone, and then we sball End our good in Him who is the sovereign good itself. No doubt, this complete renu-iciation of self is any thing but pleasing to self; but we are never required to do it in our own strength. God always gives us grace to make it easy, if we will accept it. Moreover, we are required, in this, to do, at least, no more for God than he has done for us. We are required to give up all for him. But he gave up all for us. He made himself man, took upon himself the form of a servant, became poor, and obedient unto death, eves 511 tinto the death of the cross for us; and can we not, therefore, give np ourselves for him, especially when what we give up it were an iijurt to us to hold back ? If we give ourselves to him, b,gives himself to us. He can give no more than himself and can we ask or expect more than an in6nite God can give ? Here is the condition, and it is only, under the order God has esta@ lisbqd, by complying with this condition that there is good for us here or hereafter; and we know, also, that, by complying III evil is removed, and all conceivable and more than all conceivable good is obtained. The true course to be taken, then, is perfectly plain, and may be taken without hesitation; for He who has promised is able to fulfil, and will keep his word. Of course we do not pretend, that, by conforming to the Christian order, the political and social equality contended for will be obtained; we do not pretqnd that there will be no more pain, no more sorrow, no more poverty, no more hunger or tbii-st. These things will remain, no doubt, as facts ; but we have shown that they are not necessarily evils, and that their renioval is not necessarily a good. These things have their uses in this world, or they would not be. suffered to exist. To the just they are mercies, salutary penance, or occasions of merit,pur,o,ing the soul from the staids of past transgressions, or giviDg it an occasion to rise to higher sanctity and a higher reward. To the sinner they may be the occasion of evil; bu@ if so, only because he d@ not receive them in a proper disposition, and because by his malice he refuses to profit by them. But even to him they are no more hurtful tbrn their opposites,-often not so hurtful. By coidormidg to the Christian order, all socalled temporal evils, in so far as evil, are removed, and all socalled temporal goods, in so far as good, are secured; and this is all that can be asked. But we are told, this is all, no doubt, very well, very true, very pious ; but the age does not believe it, the people will not receive ;L The people demand political and social reforms; and we must conform ourselves to their state of mind, or we m have no influence with them. Ut the Church s 512 them in their movements for liberty, equ,,tlitv, ind brot'neibood, and then tbmy will listen to her reaching, and profit bv it. If there is any truth in this, it proves kNIiat we have all along been endeavoring to establisb,-tbat the age is Socialistic. ,iijd that Socialism is unchristian, nay, anticliristian. Those. then, who urge the Church to make an illitnee with the i)eop"e in tlieii- movements, to baptize Socialism, and even give it nolv Communion, or who suppose they can without detriment 'to re,lglorl sympathize with these movements, we leave to defenki tlie!nsel%,es, as best they may, We have no skill to frame an .9i)ology for them, unless it be that they cherish the spirit of the age instead of the spirit of the Church, which is only a condemiiatiozi, But suppose the sanction involved no violation of principle, and suppose the Church should make common cause with the so-called movement party, and enable it to effect the reforms it attempts,-wltat would be gained ? These reforms, if effected, would content nobody, and a new series of reforms would be attempted, in tbeii- turn to be found equally unsatisfactory, and thus on i?i i??,flnitum,-reforms giving birth to new reforms, bringing no relief, producing and perpetuating endless confusion, to the contentment, the satisfaction of nobody, but the arch eneinv of miiikind.
The Church is not of this I world, and her principles are not those "!Iiieb govern the princes or the people of this world. She is the Spouse of God in this world, the mother of the ftiitliftil, the teacher of truth, at-.d the dispenser of the Bread of Life t,i aii who will receive it. They who are nursed with the milk from her bosom, who receive the Bread of Life from her hands and eat thereof, sball never hunger or thirst, sball never die, but sball live for ever. All she asks of governments and @,ial institutions is that they leave her free, that is, violate in their administration no law of God. If the people grow discontented with the material order they find existing, she expounds to them the law ; if in violation of the law, as %'he expounds it, th@,y still persevere, and introduce a new order, be
513
t @at it mav, she does not ilesert them; she continues to present herself in he ' r divine character before them, and to discharge for them her sacred mission. She has truly a maternal heart, and seeks always and every where the true good of the people for time and for eternity; but she knows that Almighty God his made their good possible only on one condition, and therefore on that one condition she must insist. She explains it to the people, she exhort-, and entreats them with .divine tenderness to comply with it ; but if they regard themselves as wiser than she, refuse, to comply with the indispensable condition proposed, and will return to the old heathen order and seek their good from nature and human society, instead of seeking it from God and his Church, she grieves over them as our Lord grieved over Jerusalem devoted to destruction, but slid can do no more. Their sin is on their own be-ad, and they must reap the fruit of their own sowing. Tkemselves they may destroy,-her they cannot harm.
We have no occasion' to make a profession of our respect for the Papal autl)ority; for our doctrine on that subject is well known. If ',hat authority is in any instance against us, it is suf@cient to convince us that we are wrono, and it is agaimt us in the present instance, if the view given of Pius the Ninth be, the just one. But that view has no authority, except the childish fears of one party and the unhallowed wishes of another. Pius the Ninth is a noble-minded and generous-bearted man, an eiili(rlitened prince, an humble and devout Christian, an uncompromising Catholic, a tender and vigilant shepherd, the spiritiial Father of Christendom, the visible Head of the Church, the Vicegerent of God on earth ; and he can be no Liberal, no Socialist, no political and social reformer, in the sense of this age, -no prince to deserve the sympathy of a De la Men7aais or a Horace Greely, any more than of a Ledru Rollin or a Proudboii. We know beforehand that he cannot sanction what we have presented as the principles and motives of the popular movements of the day ; for the Church in General Council and through her Sovereign Pontiffs has repeatedly and unequivocally condemned them; and he himself has condemned them in condemning Com7nunism, only another name for Socialism and in enjoining respect and obedience to princes,-as any on( may see who will read the several Alloctitions in which he hat explained his policy. No man his been more grossly misrepresented by pretende4 friends tnd real enemies than Pius the Ninth. The admireiy of the old order,-few in Dumber, bowever,-alarmed at the. rnao,iiitude of his proposed changes in the government and ad ministration of his temporal dominions, perhaps offended be. cause he did not ask or follow their advice, very naturally o@ posed him and souoht to make him appear to be carried awt hy the spirit of the age, and pursUiDg a poEcy which mtil 515 hurry the world into the ityss of Radicalism -, on the other hand, Radicals, Socialists, f reeniasons, and CarbODari claimed h,,m as one of themselves, because they wished to use the antlioi-ity of his Dame and position to stir up the Catholic populations to rebellion, and to cover their own revolutionary and anarebical purposes. We share neither in the alarm of the former nor in the wish of the latter. We form our judgment of Pius the Ninth neither from Greeley's Tr@ne, nor from the Roman correspondence of the London Morning News; but from well-known Catholic principles, his obvious position, and his own official documents. Interpreted by these, he has only followed, with singular fidelity and firmness, the policy uniformly pursued by his predecessors. As to his having sanctioned the principles and motives of the popular movements of the day, there is nothing in it. The thing, in hac providential is simply impossible. The Church, it is certain and undeniable, is wedded to no particular form of government or of social organization. She stakes her existence neither on imperialism nor on feudalism, neither on monarchynor on democracy. To no one or other of them does she comrnit bei@lf, tud she declares each of them to be a legitimate f(4rm of government when and where it exists with no legal claimant Poainst it. But the principle of these movements is exclusive democracy ;-not that democracy is a legitimate form of government, which is true; not that in these times, the views of the age being what they are, it is, with some restrietions, the best form of government, which may not be false; but that the democratic is the only legitimate form of government, that all other forms are ill @, timate, usurpations, tyrannies, tc which the people owe no allegiance, and which they may, when they please, or believe it will be for their interes@ conspire to overthrow. This is the principle implied in these movements, and which the liberals pretend that Pius the Ninth has sanctioned. But he has done no such thing. The Church eannot weept this principle, because it would bind her to demcr@,V, as her enemies a few years ago alleged that she wm 516 bound to monarchy, and compel her to declare all other forms of government illegal, and their acts null and void from the beginning. It would erect democracy into a dogma of faith If the people now establishing democracies should hereafter become tired of them, and wish to reestablish monarchy,-not an impossible supposition,-they would be obliged to renounce their religion before they could do iL The Church could make no concession to them, and would be compelled by the invtriable nature of faith, to command them to return to democracy, on pain of losing their souls. She would then not only be herself enslaved to democracy, but would be obliged to enslave the people to it also, and to prohibit them under any -circumstances and in every country from ever adopting any other form, how much soever they might desire it. Forms of government, like all tbidgs human, are changeable, and it is impossible to keep the people always and everywhere satisfied with any one form. What more unreasonable and more impolitic, then, than to bind them by religion always and everwhere to one and the same specific form ? We are opposing, we are advocating, no particular form of government. In themselves considered, forms of goverment are matters of indiffereme. The wise and just administration of government is always a matter of moment,-the form, abstractly,cotisidered, never. Man's true good is as attainable under one form of government or social organization as another; for it is obtained, if abtained at all, from a source wholly independent of the temporal order. That good the Church @ and must seek, and its necessarycondition is true liberkv. To @ sume, as these social movements do, that this liberty is possible only under a given form of government and socialorkanization would be to maintain that the Church can discharge her mission only where that particular form of government and social organization exists. The first thing her missionaries to a country where that form does not exist must attempt would then be to revolutionize the state and reorganize society. The American people, to a very considerable extent, suppose this to be the 517 &d; and, supposing monarchy to be the favorite form, niai@ tain that the spread of Catholicity here must essentially destroy our popular form &f government, and introduce forms sitni* Lo those which tLe people in the Old World are now laboring to throw off. Substitute democracy for monarchy, and the doctrine we -oppose is precisely that which our adversaries allege against us. Are we to adopt it? Are we to believe that Pius the Ninth adopts it, and requires us to uuderstani that all but democratic nations are out of the way of salvation, placed out of the conditon of attaining to any good here or hereafter ? Since we bold that forms of government are indifferent that there is evil only in sin, and that our good comes exclusively from the Christian order, we deny the necessity of political and social changes; and since to seek our good from them is to seek it from the temporal order instead of the spiritual, which is in principle a rejection of Christianity and a return to heathenism, we censure them. But the minds of the people may be perverted and their hearts corrupted, and we, in consequence, unable to make thern see where their true good lies, or to induce them even to give us their attention while we point it out to them. They may be intent on certain political changes, mad for them, and have ears, eyes, hearts, and hands, for nothing else. We may condemn their state of mind, the moral disposition in which we find them, but it is a f,,ict we have to meet, and deal with as a fact. In such cases, if the concession of the -changes demanded involves no departure from faith or morals, it is wise to make it, in some sense, necessary, as a means of removing the prohibens, as we use logic with an unbeliever in order to remove the obstacles he finds in his mind to the reception of the faith. When political or social changes for t-is purpose become necessary, it is never the part of wisdom to resist them ; authority should always be free to concede them ; and that it may be is one reason why it cannot and should not be bound to any particular form of government or swial organization. 518 Pius the Ninth ha.-, evidently acted on the principle we herr, conimend. He found, on his accession to the pontifical throne, his own immediate temporal subjects and the European popula- tior,s -,enerally mad for popultr institutions, and not to be satisfied with an thino, else. They were ripe for revolt, and y n pepared to attempt the acquisition of popular government in some form, at all hazards,-if necessary, by insurrection, violent and bloody revolution. They bad lost all respect for their rulers, and would listen no longer to the voice of their pastom,- -wo,4]d listen to nothing in fact, that was opposed to their dominant passion. What was to be done ? There were but two alternatives possible. Authority must either repress them by the strong arm of physical force, or attempt to tranquillize them and save them from civil war and anarchy by the concession of popular institutions. The former had been adopted, had been tried, was in actual operation, and it alienated still more and more the hearts of the people from their sovereigns, and from the Church, in consequence of her supposed sympathy with monarchy. Nothing was left that could be tried with much hope of a favorable issue, hut the latter alternative. Pius the Ninth saw this, -indeed, most statesmen saw it,-and, anxious far the peace and order of his dominions, and to remove from the minds of all whatever accidental obstacles there might be to their listen@xg to the lessons of religion, he resolved to adopt it; and accordingly proceeded to give his subjects a constitutional government and, by his example at least, recommended to the European sovereigns to do as much for theirs, and to do it cheerfully, ungrudgingly, and in good faith. The policy came, indeed, too late to effect all the good that was hoped, and to avert all the evil that was threatened ; yet that, under the circunistances, it was wi-,e and prudent, nay, even necessary, there really seems to us no room to doubt. We may have regretted the circunistarwes which called for it, but we have never for a moment doubted, or thought of doubting, its wisdom or its necessit,y, although from the first we apprehended.the consequences which have followed, and that it would hasten the outbrpa]. (d 519 the European populations, which we knew the ill-disposed were preparing; and we have never believed its effect in pacifying the excited multitudes would be as great as some of our friends, whose confidence in the people is greater than ours, expected it would be. The adoption of this policy, the policy of concession to the exigencies of the times, implies no sanction by the Holv Father of the principles and motives of those popular movements and demands which made it necessary or advisable, nor of the political and social changes we have spolien against. We have been addressing the people and endeavoring to show them what is proper for them to seek, not attempting to point out t/, authority what it should do -. for we have no vocation to instruct authority in its duties. We -Fire of the people, and we only point out what our religion enjoins upon them and us. It may be very just, very wise, nay, very necessary, at times, for authority to concede what it is very yvrong, very foolish, on the part of the people to demand. The children of Israel, in the time of Samuel, afford us a case in point. They demanded of the Lord a king, that they might be like other nations. The Lord rebul-ed them, told them they knew not what they asked, and unrolled before them the oppressions to which a compliance with their request would subject them. Nevertheless, be complied with it, and gave them a king. The question before Pius the Ninth was not the question we have been discussing. The movements existed, the people demanded popular institutions, and were resolved, come what might, to attempt them. The simple question for him was, How shall this state of things be treated? He said to the princes in answer, "Give the people what they ask." This he was free to do, because the Church is wedded to no political or social order, to monarchy no more than to democracy, is as indeperient of the throne as of the tribune, and canbe as much at home in a republic as anywhere else. I t-hat is to be the result of the movements of the day we know not. The old monarchies may be swept away, or they 520 may partially recover, and linger on for ao,,es to come ; but the$. does not disturb us. Old Imperial Rome and old Roman civ. ilization were broken dozen by the irruption of the Northern barbarians, tnd the world was del@zed with barbarism, but the Cl,iii@ch remained standing, and did not become barbarian; the feudalism of the Middle Ages, a system, as somebody has said, too perfect for its time, fell beneath the combined attacks of kino,s and people, but the Church survived, and beheld undisinayed its funeral pile; modern monarchy may follow, and all the world become democratic, still the Church will survive, and remain in all her integrity, shorn of none of her glory, and deprived of none of her resources. Over no changes of this sort do we weep. We have no fears for the Church ; we fear only for men. If we saw the people making war on the old political system in consequence of its wars on religjon, and Stl'UggliDg for popular institutions in order to rescue the Church from her bondage, and to secure her an open field and fair play for the future, we should hear the volleys of musketry and the roar of cannoii, and witness the charge, the siege and sack of cities, with tolerable composure; for then the war would be one of vengeance on the old governments for the insults they have offered to the Immaculate Spouse of God, and for the freedom of worship, the only war in which real glory ever is or can be required. But, alas ! we see nothing of all this. These entaged populations are moved by no regard for religion, they are to a fearful extent the bitter enemies of religious freedom, and governed by a malignant hatred of the Church. They are seeking only an earthly end, and they loathe the Christian order. Here is the source of our anxiety, the ground of our fears,-not for the Church, not for ourselves, but for them. They threaten to be more violent enemies to religion than any kings have been since the persecuting emperors of Pagan Rome; and the conduct of the Swiss radicals, the imprisonment of the noble Bishop of Lausanne and Geneva in the Castle of Chillon, and the persecution of the children of St. Alphousus by the people of Vienna, reveal but too plai@y the 521 %Vi,fit which animates them, and tell us but too distinctly what, at least for a time, we are to expect from the triumph of the popular party. Nevertheless, a wise and just Providence rules, and these things are permitted only as mercies or judginenti upon the nations. It is ours to humble ourselves and adore ; and always have we this consolation, that no evil can bef@ill us against our will, and that always and everywhere may we sectut every good by unreserved submission to God in his Church.
*491 Epistola Encyclica, August 15, 1832. *497 The Christian reader will n:)t fail to perceive that the writer here, in his blindness, takes precisel3 the view which was taken by the car. De! Jevs, for Nvliich they were cursed. Truly, there is nothing news 498 under the sun. The old carnal Jews misinterpreted the prophecies; they expected in the Messiah that was to come a temporal prince, who was to found a temporal kingdom, for the temporal happiness of mankind. They rejected and crucified our Saviour, because he did not come as such a prince, because he proposed a spiritual kingdom, and the spiritual welfare of his subjects. The Christian Socialists do the same. They interpret the promises precisely as they were interpreted by the carr,@. Tews,-expect from our Lord, like them, a temporal kingdom, ar., precisely the same order of prosperity,-and reject the Church as antichristian, precisely because she, like her lvlaster, proposes for her children the virtues and happiness of the spiritual oi der So the progress of the age consists solely in bringing its master spirits round to the point of view of the carnal Jews, to join with them in crucifying their God between two thieves ! The sects wil. itenerallv be found to be wedded to the carnal just in proportion K ney fancy they have become spiritual.
Adapted from |