The Greatest Writer of the 19th Century » Brownson's Writings » Dangers of Jesuit Instruction

Dangers of Jesuit Instruction

Brownson's Quarterly Review, January, 1846

ART III. - Dangers of Jesuit Instruction.  A Sermon preached at the Second Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, September 25, 1845. By Rev. WM. S. POTTS, D.D. 8vo. pp. 21.  .
THE author of this sermon, we presume, from its doctrine and tone, is a Presbyterian minister, and most likely. pastor of the church at which it was preached. We know nothing of him. except what the sermon itself tells us. From that we gather that he stands high in his own estimation, has some earnestness. and zeal, but is rather deficient in theological and his­torical knowledge, as well as in the meekness and sweetness of the Christian temper.
The sermon is from Eph. vi. 4, -"Bring them up' in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," or, as the Catholic ver­sion has it, "in the discipline and correction of the Lord" ; and is designed to set forth the solemn obligations of Christian parents to give their children a truly Christian education, and to point out one remarkable instance in which they violate these obligations.
"The text," he says, " is an apostolic precept given to those who hold in the Church of Christ the important and responsible relation of parents. The Church, consequently, requires, in every case in which the Sacrament of Baptism is administered to a child, that the parents bring themselves under a solemn obligation to 'endeavour, by all the means of God's appointment, to bring up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.'

" As in the administration of this Sacrament in the case of an adult, he gives himself up unto God', through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life; so parents, in presenting their children, make a formal surrender of them to God, and obligate themselves, as guardians and instructers appointed for the express purpose, to, bring them up as God's sons and daughters. For their diligence and faithfulness in the discharge of this duty every parent is to an­swer, first; to the Church officers, whose duty it is to see to the ful­filment of the vows publicly made in the Church, and secondly, to the great Judge of quick and dead. Hence arises the double duty, that officers should see to it that the Church is fully instructed in reference' to tpe nature of this covenant engagement, and that parents carefully consider the meaning of the vow that rests upon them." - p. 3.

The inquiry might arise here, Who are these" Church officers" ? and, especially, who is to see to it that they rightly in­struct, or do not misinstruct, the Church? The Church offi­cers instruct the Church; but who instructs and appoints the Church officers? The earth stands on the turtle; but what does the turtle stand on? If the sermon reaches a second edition, we hope the author will condescend to enlighten us on this point.

The explanation of the precept of the text, though it over­looks the immediate sense intended by the blessed Apostle, is well enough. The general duty of Christian parents to edu­cate their children in a Christian manner is set forth with tol­erable clearness, It is a solemn duty, and one which it is to be deeply lamented parents too often and too fatally neglect. The parent who brings his child to the Sacrament of Baptism incurs a solemn obligation to do all in his power to bring him up in a truly Christian manner; and if he do not, and the child through that neglect be lost, terrible will be the account he will one day be called upon to settle with his Maker and his Judge, But the main design, and much the larger part, of this sermon is devoted to pointing "out one of the Instances in which parents violate this command."

"The case," the author says," to which I allude, is the indiffer­ence manifested by Christian parents to the characters, morals, and religious sentiments of the instructers of their children, Many pa­rents act upon the principle, that it is of no importance what may be the morals or sentiments entertained by a teacher, provided there is no immorality exhibited before the pupils, and no attempt to inculcate sentiments deemed erroneous, But no opinion could be more untrue, or more practically dangerous. The Scripture declaration, as a man 'thinketh in his heart so is he,' will be found true. His teachings and example will be insensibly influenced by the doctrines he holds, and there will occur a thousand ways in which the pupil will distinctly comprehend the views and feelings of the preceptor; and these views will not have the less influence, from the fact that he makes no direct effort to impress them upon the pupil's mind. A direct effort of this kind would put the learner on his guard; but the other plan allays all fear, and the poison si­lently and imperceptibly works. The child is subjected five sevenths of his time to this influence, and the remaining portion to a differ­ent influence; no wonder, then, that the poison has gained so fast, that errors are fixed beyond remedy in the mind before the parent is aware that they exist at all, Hence, everyone soliciting at your hands the post of instructer of your children should be willing. to submit his opinions and life to the most rigid scrutiny, before he asks that so important a trust should be confided to him," - pp. 6,7,

The principle laid down here we regard as a sound one. We should find it extremely difficult to bring ourselves to in­trust the education of our children to instructers we held to be unsound in the faith, There is no torture we would not endure sooner than trust them to the care of Presbyterian teachers, even in matters but remotely connected with faith and morals. We agree entirely with Dr. Potts in the principle he lays down, and are quite certain, that, if the Americans generally would adopt it, and act upon it, there would soon be an end of that monopoly of education throughout the United States, which has hitherto been enjoyed by Presbyterians and the Cal­vinistic Congregationalists. The great majority of the Ameri­can people are anti-Calvinistic, and if they were not shamefully indifferent to the doctrines entertained by those they employ as instructers, we should not see, as is even yet the fact, the greater part of our colleges, academies, and literary institutions under Calvinistic control.

But, if we agree with Dr, Potts in the principle he lays down, we are far from agreeing with him in the application he makes of it, From the fact, that parents are bound to bring up their children in the discipline and correction of the Lord, he infers that they are bound not to intrust them to Catholic instructers, But this is a plain non sequitur; for none but Catholic instructers do, or can, impart a truly Christian educa­tion. He would also infer from the same premises that Chris­tian parents can in conscience employ none but Presbyterian educators; which is another non sequitur. Educators cannot impart what they have not; and Presbyterians must be Chris­tians, before they can give a Christian education, That they are not Christians now, we have the right to say; since, in a recent act of their general assembly, asserting the invalidity of ­Catholic baptism, they have unchristened themselves. Men are made Christians in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Pres­byterians have no baptism but that which they derived from the Catholic Church, and their title to the Christian name rests on the validity of that baptism. They have declared that baptism invalid. Consequently, according to their own declaration, they have always been, and are, a set of unbaptized - Presbyte­rians, and therefore completely out of the pale of Christen­dom. Evidently, then, if Christian parents are bound to give their children a Christian education, they must not employ Presbyterian instructors.

Dr. Potts asserts that Catholic individuals and ecclesiastical orders are at the doors of Protestants, "asking Christian parents to commit their children to their hands to be educated, and, of course, - for this is the parent's vow, - to be trained up for God." - p. 7. This, if so, is no doubt horrible, and not to be tolerated ; for we suppose Protestants are not at lib­erty to refuse the request. But we are inclined to think he labors under a slight mistake. We are sure that Catholics do not solicit Protestants to intrust them with the education of their children. We establish schools for our own children, that we may discharge the duty .the preacher is laboring to enforce ; and it can be no sin in us to request Catholic parents to send their children to Catholic schools. We do not request Protestants to send their children to our schools; we are not particularly desirous of receiving them, and some of our col­leges will not receive them at all. It is a favor we confer on Protestants, when we admit their sons and daughters into our schools, for which they should thank us, both for their own sake and their children's sake, not abuse us.
We think also the preacher is ungenerous in objecting to our schools because they furnish education at "reduced pri­ces." This objection comes with an ill grace from the party that claims to be the especial friends of education, and the founders of free schools. That our schools give a better edu­cation and at less expense than Protestant schools we do not question ; for our instructors are for the most part vowed to poverty, and devoted to the work of education not for the love of money, but for the love of God. Education is with them a religious vocation. They are men and women dead to the world, and alive only to God, and no doubt they have special graces from Almighty God for the work to which he calls them, They are thus enabled to educate better than Protes­tants can, whatever their zeal, diligence, learning, or natural ability; and, as they have no expensive families or position to maintain, they can educate much cheaper than Protestants can. This sufficiently accounts for the excellence and cheapness of our schools, and for their ability to compete more than success­fully, wherever established, with Protestant schools. But this surely implies no fault on our part, and can be no ground for condemning us or our schools.

But the reduced prices at which our schools furnish educa­tion is not the only objection the preacher brings against them. He thinks the Christian parent cannot send his children to our schools, because Catholic instructers are not sound in the faith. He proceeds, therefore, to set forth wherein Catholics have not the essential Christian faith. If Catholics do not hold the essential truths of the Christian religion, parents undoubt­edly cannot with a safe conscience commit their children to their care. No parent can safely trust his children to an infi­del or a misbelieving instructer. So far, we agree with Dr. Potts. But this question as to the orthodoxy of Catholics is a somewhat delicate question. It is simply, Does the Catholic Church hold and teach the true Christian faith?

Now, it is undeniable that we cannot decide this question, unless we have some standard or criterion of orthodoxy. What is this criterion? By what standard does the zealous Doctor propose to try the Catholic faith? By the Bible? Well, by the Bible as he understands it, or as Catholics un­derstand it? If as Catholics understand it, then he must con­cede the orthodoxy of Catholicity; for the Catholic faith is authorized by the Catholic understanding of the Bible. But will he say, as he himself understands it? But whence does it follow that Dr. Potts, who preaches at the Second Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, understands the Bible better than the Catholic?  Why, are we to say that the Catholic faith is heterodox, because it does not agree with his understanding of the word of God? Is he infallible? Does he pretend it ? Then how settle the question, whether his or the Catholic's un­derstanding of the Bible be the true understanding ?

"But take the Bible itself; neither your understanding of it, nor mine, - but the Bible, the precious Bible, the very word of God itself."

With all my heart. But the Bible is nothing to us, unless we attach some meaning to it ; and if we attach a false meaning to it, then what we take to be the Bible is not the Bible. We do not take the Bible, unless we take it in God's sense, - in the sense intended by the Holy Ghost, who dictated it. How shall we ascertain this sense ?

But the good Doctor is troubled with no questionings of this sort. The earth rests on the turtle, and it does not occur to him to ask what the turtle stands on. We should not be over-curious, and no Christian ever allows himself to ask im­pertinent questions. So he tacitly assumes his own infallibility, that the turtle stands on his own feet, - for what else should a turtle stand on? - and proceeds to try the Catholic faith.

"Our first inquiry is into the doctrines held by these teachers; that is, by the Papal Church. The Christian parent, lying under a solemn vow, must know whether the instructer of his child holds the essential truths of the Christian religion. It has been generally the opinion of Protestants that Roman Catholics were not wrong in those doctrines that are fundamental in the Christian faith, but that their great error consisted in the load of trumpery, such as tho worship of the Virgin Mary, and of saints and relics; he doctrines of purgatory, penance, and auricular confession; of transubstantia­tion, and the adoration of the bread; which, being wrought into the way of salvation as revealed, served to cloud the mind, and, in most cases, entirely mislead the worshipper from the true objects of faith. This opinion has risen from the circumstance, that Rome held the same symbols of faith with the Protestant Church­es, as the Apostles' and Athanasian creeds. But these formularies of doctrine are so brief, that without explanation it is impossible to know what is the faith held by those professing to embrace them. The Apostles' creed may be adopted by every description of errorists professing to receive the Bible; and the same is true of the creed of Athanasius, with the single exception of Arians, whose error it was designed to detect, Hence, the opinion of Protestants referred to was manifestly made up on insufficient evidence."­pp. 7,8.

This is a beautiful extract. So Protestants have hitherto been mistaken as to the real character of the Church. Well, there is some comfort in that. If they have heretofore erred, it is certain they are not infallible, and may therefore err again. Drowning men will catch at straws. So, since it is admitted Protestants may err, we will conclude it is barely possible they do err, when they deny that the Church believes and teaches "the essential truths of the Christian religion."

But the question of the criterion or standard still comes up.
By what authority does our Presbyterian friend distinguish between the essential truths of the Christian religion, and the " trumpery" with which they are loaded? This question con­tinually haunts us, and, like Banquo's ghost, "will not down at the bidding." We are even anxious to cast off all "trumpery"; but you must prove to us that what you require us to cast off is trumpery, before we can consent to cast it off. What is the authority for saying this or that is trumpery? The Bible? That answer will not suffice; because the moment that is intro­duced, the question comes up, What is the true sense of the Bible? How determine that? By private judgment? But I have private judgment as well as you. If I am required to submit my private judgment to yours, the right of private judgment is denied, and then you are as badly off as I. More­over, our private judgments clash. You call some things trump­ery which I revere as sacred. If the right of private judgment is admitted, you cannot be required to submit your private judg­ment to mine, nor I mine to yours, Where is the umpire to decide between us? The Presbyterian General Assembly? But, at the very worst, the authority of the Catholic Church is equal to the authority of the Presbyterian Assembly; why, then, shall I submit to the Assembly rather than to the Church? As a prudent man, how can I do so? Your Assembly is quite young and inexperienced, It represents a sect born only the other day, and which includes at best only a small portion­a very small portion - of those who profess to be Christians, and they no prodigies for their intelligence or their amiability. Who has given them authority to teach? What, in fact, is their authority, making all you can of it, before the Catholic Church, which now embraces, and which has embraced from the times of the Apostles, the overwhelming majority of all who profess, or have professed, the Christian religion, and from which you have pilfered all the Christianity you have? To exchange the authority of the Catholic Church for that of the Presbyterian Church would be like Glaucus exchanging his golden armor for the brazen armor of Diomed. Sure we are we should get only brass in return. No, no, most excellent Doctor, we cannot make so foolish an exchange. You must bring me higher authority than that of the Presbyterian Assem­bly, especially since it has unchristened itself, before its decision will suffice for determining what are the essential truths of the Christian religion, and what is mere "trumpery."

For our part, we shrink from calling the devotion Catholics pay to the blessed Virgin and the saints by so harsh a word as "trumpery." To brand with that name the uniform practice of the great mass of professed Christians for eighteen cen­turies, including the greatest, best, and holiest men and women that have ever lived, requires, to say the least, very respectable authority, and is not to be done lightly. Dr. Potts knows perfectly well tbat Catholics pay supreme worshIp to God alone, and that they are strictly forbidden by their religion to give that to a creature which is due only to God. We honor the blessed Virgin, we admit; for the angel Gabriel honored her, when he saluted her "full of grace" ; for God himself honored her, when he chose to become her son, and to love and obey her as his mother; and we cannot believe it wrong for us to honor whom God and his holy angels honor. Dr. Potts, doubtless, professes to believe that Jesus Christ was both God and man, two distinct natures in one person, - that he was truly born of the Virgin Mary, and that she was literally and truly his mother, as much so as any woman is the mother of her son. If so, he must believe that she is still his mother, and that our blessed Lord still loves and honors her as such. If she is still his mother, if he still loves and honors her, he can­not regard it as "trumpery" that we, too, love and honor her. Would our Presbyterian friend regard it as a slight to himself, if such were our esteem for him that we loved and hon­ored his mother for his sake ? Would he regard our disre­spect of his mother as a proof of our love and esteem of him? If he is not a bad son, he would be more offended at our want of respect to his mother than at our want of respect for himself, and would resent it quicker and more deeply. Was our blessed Lord not a good son? Why, then, tell us it is "trumpery" for us to honor his Virgin Mother? Alas! how little does our Presbyterian minister know of the sublime mystery of the Incarnation!  How much does he lose by his ignorance of the exquisite tenderness and grace of that devo­tion which Catholics pay to the Mother of our Lord ; who by the Holy Ghost declared that henceforth all nations should call her "Blessed"! St. Luke, i. 4-8.

Nor are we willing to regard it as "trumpery" to hopor the saints. We have always supposed that the saints have honor in heaven, that God himself loves and honors every saint; that to be loved and honored of God is included in the reward of sanctity. May I not love and honor whom God loves and honors? If we love God, will not our hearts over­flow with love to all that are dear to God? And who are dearer to God than the saints who have washed their robes white in the blood of the Lamb, who have borne the cross here below, fought the good fight, won the victory, and now sing their tri­umph in songs of benediction and joy before the throne of God himself? May we publicly assemble to honor the memory of the statesman, the patriot, and the hero, stained, perhaps, with a thousand vices and crimes ; and yet must not honor the saint whose life was fragrant with divine grace, and whose footsteps have hallowed the earth? Or is our crime in the fact, that we believe the saint still lives, and that there is a blessed commun­ion of saints, including the saints above and the saints below, binding us all together as one body, united to God as the soul? :May we request the suffrages of those we love, who are still in the flesh, and not the suffrages of those who are released from their bondage, and are now in the very presence of God? Has the departed saint lost a portion of his facul­ties, or has his heart become callous to the wants of those for whom, when he was in the flesh, he would willingly die ? O, call not the devotion we pay to the saints, the interest we beg in their prayers, "trumpery" ! You know not what you say; and may the saints pray God to forgive you for blasphem­ing him in them!

We do not worship "relics." We regard and honor them for what they represent, or the worth to which they are re­lated, They are memorials we value and treasure up. Has Dr. Potts never a memorial of a dear friend, now departed, with which he would not willingly part? Is that picture of his ever honored mother, which the pious son preserves with so much care, or that locket, which was her mother's, the pious daughter prizes so highly, mere trumpery? The New Eng­lander makes his pilgrimage to the rock on which our fore­fathers landed, and the descendants of the Pilgrims, when erect­ing in the old town of Plymouth Pilgrim Hall, place a frag­ment of that rock in its walls. The patriot feels rich in the cane, snuff-box, or paper-cutter, made from the wood of "Old Ironsides," and we saw but a few days since that the represent­ative of our government in Peru had sent to the National Institute at Washington a fragment of the flag of Pizarro, together with one or two other valued relics, We go into our State House, and we see old muskets, swords, a headless drum, and other curious relics of the earlier Indian wars or of the Revolution, preserved with great care. All this is proper, and is commended by even the sternest of the Puritan race, But it is all " trumpery" to preserve with respect the relics of a saint of God, one whose presence blessed the race of men, and who has been crowned in heaven! We may preserve with affectionate care the coat of Washington, or visit with reverential feeling the room where Voltaire penned his blasphe­my, or the bed where he slept after having reviled the religion of God; but it is all "trumpery," if the pious Christian pre­serves the sacred tunic worn by his Lord when he tabernacled with men, or finds his devotion quickened on beholding it, It is only the relics of those deal to God, who followed him in humility and all fidelity, who, by his grace, won immortal victories over the world, the flesh, and the devil, who came off more than conquerers through him who loved them; it is only the sacred relics of such as these it is offensive to God that we should preserve, or "trumpery" that we should respect for the sake of the worth to which they are related. The lover may wear the picture of his mistress next his heart, and poets will sing his praise, and romancers immortalize him; but if I wear next to mine the image of the Virgin Mother of my God, whose heart was transfixed with a sword of grief, as she saw her divine Son suffer. and die that I might have life and joy, it is all "trumpery." You may fill your houses and grounds with statues of heathen gods and goddesses, naked dancing-girls, and wild bacchantes, or hang round your rooms the pictures of bandits, cut-throats, and villains; but if I place in my study, or the Church places upon her altar, the image of the Crllcifixion, or if in my devotions I kneel before the cross, or the image of the Queen of Saints, it is all " trumpery," besotted superstition, debasing idolatry! 0 mis­erable Protestantism, thou wert born of contradictions; thou stealest away the brains and petrifiest the hearts of thy vota­ries! The fatal cup of Circe wrought not more frightful transformations in the companions of Ulysses, than thou dost in those who drink from thine.

The doctrines of purgatory, penance, and transubstantia­tion we pass over for the present; but the charge, that Catho­lics adore "the bread," even Dr. Potts must be aware is not true, - not true, even if it were possible for us to be mistaken in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. We do not adore the bread, for we do not believe there is any bread there. What we adore is not what we see with our eyes, what we detect with any of our senses, but our blessed Lord himself, whom we believe to be, not represented, but concealed under the appearance of bread and wine. Our adoration is intended for God, for the Incarnate God, - is directed to him, and is adoration of him, even if he be not present in the manner we believe. Yet it is not strange that Protestants, who regard themselves as the more enlightened portion of mankind, since they believe Jesus Christ is represented by a piece of bread, should suppose that Catholics must believe him to be bread; for to believe him to be bread is, after all, not so far re­moved from believing that bread represents him as some may imagine.

But here is another curious extract.

"The Papal system of doctrine was never settled until the Coun­cil of Trent, which closed its sessions in 1564. Previous to this, Councils had dealt very much in formularies, and they had defined and changed, affirmed and condemned, in so many different ways, that it was no very unusual thing for that to be rank heresy in one section of the Church that was orthodox in another, and opinions of every shade and hue were held by different teachers in that communion. The Protestant controversy compelled Rome to set­tle her faith, and the great and last Genetal Council convened at Trent in 1545 for this purpose. Their decrees, having been con­firmed by the Pope, according to the doctrine of that Church, are infallible and unalterable," - p, 8.

This is easily said, but not easily proved. That heresies have arisen in the Church, both before Luther and since, no­body denies; but that they have ever been permitted in the Church by any portion of the Church is not true. The faith of the Church is always and everywhere the same, and never have individuals in one age or one country been authorized to hold what in another age or country has been counted hereti­cal. No doubt, Protestantism would delight to find that the Church had contradicted herself; but this, though often assert­ed, has never been made out, and never can be. The faith of the Church is that which the Church through her pastors teaches authoritatively, or commands her children to believe; and she always and everywhere has commanded one and the same faith. It is in vain Protestants assert the contrary, They have never succeeded, and never can succeed, in adduc­ing a single instance which impugns this statement. The holy Council of Trent made not the least alteration in the faith. It simply defined it more fully on certain points than it had been before, repeated several former definitions which had been con­troverted, and condemned the new heresies which had arisen . To say that the Catholic faith was not settled till the Council closed its sessions, in 1556, betrays either an ignorance or a  recklessness which is by no means creditable to him who says so.

But here is something. worse yet.

"It has been thought by Protestants, that, if there was one doc­trine held by the Papal Church that was entirely free from error, it was that of the Trinity, Yet, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, we find the following explanations on this subject: -'Let him, however, who by the divine bounty believes these truths, con­stantly beseech and implore God, and the Father, who made all things out of nothing, and orders all things sweetly, who gave us power to become the sons of God, and who made known to us the mystery of the Trinity, that, admitted, one day, into the eter­nal tabernacles, he may be worthy to see how great is the fecun­dity of the Father, who, contemplating and understanding himself, begot the Son like and equal to himself; how a love of charity in both, entirely the same and equal, which is the Holy Ghost, pro­ceeding from the Father and tho Son, connects the begetting and the begotten by an eternal and indissoluble bond; and that thus the essence of the Trinity is one, and the distinction of the three per­sons perfect.' - p. 27. So that a love of charity, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is, in the Romish notion, the Holy Ghost.

"Concerning the eternal generation of the Son the same Cate­chism gives us the following as an illustration: - 'As the mind, in some sort looking into and understanding itself, forms an image of itself, which theologians express by the term "word"; so God, as far, however, as we may compare human things to divine, understanding himself, begets the eternal word.' - p. 36. So far as this illustration teaches any thing, it is, that the Son of God is a representation of an idea in the mind of God.

"On the manner of Christ's birth we have this remarkable instruc­tion from the same source: -'As the rays of the sun penetrate, without breakng or injuring in the least, the substance of glass; after a like, but more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother's womb without injury to her mater­nal virginity, which, immaculate and perpetual, forms the just theme of our eulogy.' - p. 40. The humanity of Christ is here denied. He is not the seed of the woman, and no more a descend­nnt from Adam than was the angel that wrestled with Jacob at Peniel. Now, whatever may be said of the orthodoxy of Rome, and the correctness of her teachings in other things, there can be but one opinion amongst Protestants concerning these views of her authorized standard; that the doctrines of the Trinity and the humanity of Christ, as we hold them, are denied." - pp. 8,9.

The objection to the first extract is, that the Holy Ghost is said to be the "love of charity," charitatis amor, - but why this is objectionable the preacher does not tell us, and we do not know. The father loves the Son with an eternal and in­finite love, and the Son loves the Father with an eternal and infinite love, and from their mutual love proceeds infinite and Eternal Love, which is the Holy Ghost. This love is termed amor charitatis, because theologians distinguish several kinds of love; and the highest, purest, and most perfect love is what they term the "love of charity." The word charity does not, as our learned preacher seems to imagine, express the object of the love, but its quality, and determines the love in question to be that love which is termed charity, not some other kind of love, as, for instance, amor concupiscentae, or amor amicitiae. The Catechism merely terms the Holy Ghost, in plain English, Charity, or most perfect love, pro­ceeding from the charity or most perfect love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for the Father. This is the worst that can be made of it, But what is there objectionable in this? Does not the Apostle St, John (1 St. John, iv, 16) say, Deus charitas est, or, as the Protestant version has it, " God is love"? If the blessed Apostle calls God charity, or love, why may not the Catechism call the Holy Ghost, who is God, also ,charity or love ?  
Does our Presbyterian minister fancy that he sees in the as­sertion, charitatis amor qui Spiritus Sanctus est, an attack on the personality, or, indeed, the substantiality, of the Holy Ghost? He must bear in mind, first, that, in the sentence he quotes, the Catechism is not defining nor even giving a general statement of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity; but in the para­graph from which it is taken is giving a caution against subtle speculations concerning this mystery, teaching that the words in which it is expressed are to be religiously observed, and ad­monishing us to pray diligently that we may be found worthy at last, when admitted into the eternal tabernacles, to see and understand what here we must believe on the authority of God, without seeking too curiously to ascertain how or why it is that God exists in unity of essence and trinity of persons. And in the second place, he must bear in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is to be received by faith, the Catechism here presupposes, because it had in the previous sections given a clear, distinct, and precise statement of it, We quote from the paragraph but one preceding the one from which the author takes his extract.
"Tres enim sunt in una divinitate personae: Patris, qui a nullo genitus est; Filii, qui ante omnia saecula a Patre genitus est; Spiritus sancti, qui itidem ab aeterno ex Patre et Filio procedit.  Atqui Pater est in una divinitatis substantia prima persona, qui cum unigenito Filio suno et Spiritu sancto unus est Deus, unus est Dominus, non in unius singularitate personae, sed in unius Trinitate substantiae.  Jam vero hae tres personae, cum in iis quidquid dissimile, aut dispar cogitare nefas sit, suis tantummodo proprietatibus distinctae intelliguntur.  Pater siquidem ingenitus est; Filius a Patre genitus; Spiritus sanctus ab utroque procedit.  Atque ita trium personarum eandem essentiam, eandem substantiam confitemur; ut in confessione verae sempiternaeque Deitatis, et in personis proprietatem, et in essentia unitatem, et in Trinitate aequalitatem pie et sancte colendam credamus."--Art. I. 12.

If this does not satisfy the worthy preacher, the fault must be in himself.  
The second extract is not fairly made. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is designed mainly to guide, direct, and assist pastors in the instruction of their flocks. It not only lays down what is of faith, but suggests the explanations which the­ologians adopt to enable the mind to conceive them with less difficulty. This is the case in the paragraph from which Dr. Potts quotes a part of a sentence. We quote the whole para­graph.

"Ex omnibus autem, quae ad indicandum modum rationemque aeternae generationis similitutidines afferuntur, illa proprius ad rem videtur accedere, quae ab animi nostri cogitatione sumitur, quamobrem Sanctus Joannes Filium ejus, (1 Joan. i.1,) Verbum appellat.  Ut enim mens nostra, se ipsam quodammodo intelligens, sui effingit imaginem quam Verbum Theologi dixerunt; ita Deus, quantum tamen divinis humana conferri possunt, seipsum intelligens, verbum aeternum generat; etsi praestat contemplari, quod fides proponit, et sincera mente Jesum Christum verum Deum et verum hominem credere et confiteri, genitum quidem, ut Deum, ante omnium saeculorum aetates, ex Patre; ut hominem vero natum in tempore ex matre Maria Virgine."*--Art. II. 15. (footnote: *"But of all those things which are made use of as similitudes to show the manner and way of his eternal,generation, that seems to come nearest the matter which is taken from the thought of our mind; wherefore St. John calls the Son his Word. For, as our mind, in some man­ner understanding itself, forms an image of itself, which theologians call Word, so God (as far as human things may be compared with divine), understanding himself, generates his eternal Word; nevertheless it is better to contemplate what faith proposes, and with a sincere heart to believe and confess that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, begotten indeed, as God, of the Father, before all ages and generations, but, as man, born in time, of his mother the Virgin Mary."--end of footnote)

There is here no occasion for comment. The idle objection of the preacher is not worth answering.

The third objection will vanish, the moment the preacher shall learn to distinguish between conception and parturition. The illustration is brought to enable us to conceive the possibility of the birth of our Lord without'damage to the virginity of his mother, not to teach the silly heresy the sagacious Doctor deduces from it. The passage we have just quoted proves that the Church teaches the humanity no less than the divini­ty of our Saviour, as might well be inferred from the fact, that we call the blessed Virgin the mother of God, and as such delight to honor her.

If the Doctor has any doubts as to the soundness of our faith in the respects in which he seeks to impugn it, we re­fer him to the Athanasian creed, which he knows is authorita­tive for all Catholics, and which, with due deference to him, we must believe is express, not only against Arians, as he alleges, but against all who impugn the doctrine of the Trinity or that of the Incarnation, Did he ever read it? Has he evor found a Socinian, a Unitarian, or a Sabellian that could subscribe to it? Nay, what standard has he himself for the doctrine of the Trinity, but the Nicene and Athanasian creeds? And what evidence can he give that even he himself holds the true doctrine of the Trinity, but the fact, that he holds it as the Catholic Church has defined and still defines it?
The next objection the preacher makes to the Catholic Church is to her "rule of faith," - that is, he objects that she does not adopt the Protestant rule of faith. The Protestant rule of faith is "the Bible alone." We deny it. The Bible alone is not and never can be the Protestant's rule of faith. The pretensions of Protestants in this respect are arrant non­sense or rank hypocrisy, with which they humbug themselves or seek to humbug others. Where in the Bible alone does this Presbyterian Doctor find his doctrine of infant baptism? his obligation or his right to keep the first day of the week, instead of the seventh, as the Sabbath day ? nay, his doctrine of the Trinity itself? Separate the Bible from the commentary on it furnished by the belief and practice of the Church in all ages, leave merely the naked text, with grammar and lexicon, and there is not a man living who can maintain any consistent system of doctrines from it without doing violence to its letter and its spirit. It would be a book of riddles, and no one could make any thing out of it, except here and there a portion of it. If Protestants take the Bible alone, why do they differ so among themselves? why have they so many commenta­tors? and. why is it that those born and brought up Presbyte­rians, as a general rule, find the Bible teaching Presbyterianism, and those brought up Unitarians find it teaching Unitarianism? Every sect has its traditions, and by these it, consciously or unconsciously, interprets the Bible. It cannot avoid doing so, even if it would.

But what authority has the Protestant for asserting that the Bible alone is the rule of faith? He must establish his rule, and from the Bible itself, or he has no right to assume it. This he has never yet done, and this he never can do ; for the Bible nowhere professes to be the rule of faith. It commands us to hear the Church, and assumes throughout that the Church is the ultimate authority in controversies concerning faith. Moreover, the Bible alone is not and cannot be the rule of faith. A rule of faith is that by which controversies concern­ing faith may be decided. But the Bible alone cannot decide controversies; for it is, in itself considered, a dead letter, and cannot speak till made to speak by some living authority, and because nearly all the controversies which arise are contro­versies concerning what is the faith as contained in it.

Our Presbyterian friend is quite indignant that the Church receives as canonical certain books which he is pleased to term apocryphal. Will he tell us on what authority he denies the canonicity of these books? Is not, even humanly speaking, the authority of the Council of Trent equal to any authority he call bring against it? We do not recollect any Protestant synod that has ever assembled, more respectable for their numbers, their learning, their ability, or their piety, than were the fathers of the Council of Trent. These decided, as the Church had previously decided and held, that the books in question were canonical; and the preacher must bring us an authority higher than theirs for saying they are not, before we shall be convinced they are not rightfully included in the sacred canon. He admits that the Presbyterian Church is fallible, and he can say no more of the Catholic Church. If his Church is fallible, it may err as to the canon as well as re­specting other matters. Her authority, then, can never be a sufficient motive for setting aside the authority of the Catholic Church. How will he, then, prove to us, that in this very matter he himself is not the party in error?
The Church, it seems, errs not only in her rule of faith, but in her faith itself, especially in her doctrine of justification, She teaches concerning justification a doctrine which is differ­ent from the Protestant doctrine. Admitted. What then? Why, then, she is wrong. We beg your pardon, Before you can say we are wrong because we differ from you, you must prove that you are right; for, till then, it may be that you are wrong because you differ from us. But "the doctrine of jus­tification by faith has ever been the peculiarly cherished doctrine of Protestants." - p. 10. Granted. But Protestants are fallible, and may have cherished with peculiar affection a falsehood. But "Luther pronounced it the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls," - ib. But Luther also said that all who entertain the views of the Eucharist taught by the Sa­cramentarians, which views the author of the sermon before us entertains, when they die, go straight to hell. Was Luther right in this? No? Then Lpther was fallible. Then he may have erred in this doctrine of justification. Then how do you know he did not? By what criterion do you determine when Luther taught truth and when falsehood? From the Bible?  But Luther had the Bible as well as you; and how know you that you understand the Bible better than he did? We also have the Bible, and we say the Bible is against you both; and how will you determine that your interpretations of Bible doctrine are better than ours? Do you say our Church is fallible? We deny it; but admit it, and even then it is as good as yours, for yours is not infallible.

But this is not all. Luther's doctrine. of justification by faith alone is rejected by many Protestants themselves. Sweden­borg sends Luther to hell for teaching it; the Unitarians, Universalists, Quakers, some Anglicans, the Genevans, the majority of the French Protestants, and a great part of the German Protestants, virtually, if not avowedly, reject it. It is hardly true to say of any Protestant sect, at the present day, that it really holds it as it was taught by Luther and his brother innovators. Dr. Potts ought in justice to convert his Protes­tant brethren to this doctrine, before making it a ground of accu­sation against the Church that she does not teach it. If she were to accept it, she would gain nothing, for she would still be arraigned by Protestants, who, with Bible in hand, would under­take to convict her of accepting a false doctrine.
Moreover, the doctrine in question is a very bad doctrine.  As originally set forth by the Reformers, it is, Believe firmly that God remits your sins for Christ's sake, and you are justi­fied, without any respect to a moral change which may be effected in you. The justified man, morally considered, or considered in relation to his actual intrinsic character, is just as much of a sinner as he was before justification. The only difference between the justified and the unjustified is, that the sins of the former are not imputed, while the sins of the lat­ter are. Thus you may sin as much as you please, but so long as you believe firmly that God remits your sins for
Christ's sake, not one of the sins you commit will be imputed to you, or reckoned as sin, This was Luther's doctrine, and hence, when a young man asks him his advice as to the best manner of resisting the temptations of the Devil, tells him to drink, get drunk, to sin lustily and spite the Devil. But to justify signifies to make just, and no man destitute of justice is justified. The error of the Protestants is in placing justification in the simple remission of sin. Sin may be remitted, and yet the man want justice. Consequently the remission is not alone justification. God is a God of truth, and, can call no man just who is not just. But we will let another speak for us in this matter.
"Justification is that action or operation of Divine Grace on the soul by which a man passes from the state of sin; from an enemy, becomes a friend of God, agreeable in the Divine sight, and an heir to eternal life, This act of transition from the one state to the other, with its operating causes; is called' justification.' From the circumstance of its being a spiritual and interior opera­tion, it is evident that it affords an opportunity for theological subtleties to those who would make use of it; and, at the same time, renders it difficult to expose the error which those subtleties may be employed to foster. The Church, therefore, has always pre­served her ancient and orthodox teaching under the form of sound words, which heresy has ever betrayed itself by refusing to adopt.
"Thus, in both communions, justification is acknowledged to be, as to its efficient source, from, and through, and by Jesus Christ alone. But in the Catholic system, this justification, occurring in the modes of the Saviour's appointment, is not only the imputation, but also the interior application, of the justice of Christ, by which guilt is destroyed, pardon bestowed, and the soul replenished by the inherent grace and charity of the Holy Spirit.
"According to the Protestant principle, justification is when a man believes with a firm and certain faith or conviction in his own mind that the Justice of Christ is 'imputed' to him. This is that 'faith alone' by which they profess to be saved. The sacraments, for them, have no other end or efficacy, except as signs to awaken this individual and personul faith, so called, and as tokens of com­munion. Neither is it that any intrinsic or interior operation takes place in the soul by this, in which she is changed, by a transition from the state of sin, now remitted and destroyed, to a state of justice wrought for her and in her, by the application of the merits and infusion of the grace of Christ. No; this is the Catholic doctrine. But, according to the Protestant principle, no such change takes place. According to that principle, the impious man is not made just, even by the adoption of God, or the merits of Christ. But, leaving him in his injustice, it is conceived that his sins are no longer imputed to him, but that the justice of Christ is imputed to him. Thus, a criminal is under guilt and condemna­tion; but, in consideration of a powerful and innocent intercessor, the chief magistrate pardons him. It is only by a certain fiction of thought and language that such a person can be considered innocent; or that his intrinsic guilt can be conceived of as still existing, but as imputed to the one who interceded for him, and the justice of that intercessor imputed to him. Such is the exact likeness of justification, as taught in the theology of Protestantism. But it is to be observed that the sphere which is assigned as the seat of this species of fiction is the mind of God himself! The sinner is not intrinsically or really justified in this system; but we are told that God, on account of the merits of Christ, is pleased to regard and repute' him as such; that is, God 'reputes' him to be what, in reality, he knows him not to be!

"St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, speaks of the faith of Abraham as having been reputed to him unto justice. And Lu­ther, to meet the exigencies of his case, seized on the letter of this passage, and distorted its spirit and meaning. God had made rich promises to Abraham and his posterity. The hope of this promise was in his son Isaac. And God, to try the faith of his servant, di­rected Abraham to immolate this, his only son, as a sacrifice to his name.

"Such an order, under such circumstances, was calculated to throw deep and impenetrable mystery over the previous promises treasured up in the mind of the patriarch. Nevertheless, he fal­ters not in his confidence, but obeys without a moment's hesitation. He sinks all the apprehensions arising from the suggestions of flesh and blood, and, in the simplicity of his confidence, prepares to exe­cute what had been commanded. And it is only when his hand is uplifted to strike, that God manifests his acceptance of the will, which, however, embraced the work itself, that he is no longer permitted to execute.

"Such was the faith of Abmham. But it is evident that it em­braced the works, and that, so far as obedience, will, intention, purpose, and even feelings, were concerned, Abraham had already completed the sacrifice. Thus, the same Apostle writes in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ii. 17, 'By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.'

"As, however, the outward immolation was not actually or phys­ically consummated, Luther was pleased to exclude it altogether from the faith of Abraham, contrary to the express words of St. Paul himself. The error of Luther has been incorporated, with but slight modifications, into the theology of all the other Protestant denominations. Hence the doctrine of salvation by 'faith alone.' By faith, to use their own phraseology, the sinner 'seizes' on the merits of Christ, - by believing firmly that they are 'imputed' to' him. It is not that by this he is made just or innocent, but God is pleased to declare, to suppose, to repute, - let us say it with reverence, - to imagine him as such.  It is all God's work; he has not the smallest share in it; and thence the seductive boast of the system, that thus 'all the glory returns to God, and nothing to man.' Under the same plea, good works were decried as hin­drances, rather than helps, in the matter of justification. It was supposed, indeed, that, by a necessary consequence, they would appeal; in the life of the believer, as the fruit and evidence of his faith. But even then they could be of no advantage to the soul. Neither could sin, except that of unbelief alone, defeat its salvation. To such a point of insanity did Luther carry his doctrine on this subject, that he declares, that, 'if adultery could be committed in faith, it would not be a sin.' 'Si in fide fieri posset adulterium, peccatum non esset.' - Luth. Disput. t. 1. p. 523."·(footnote: . Rt. Rev. John Hughes, D. D., Bishop of New York. From the In­troduction to "An Inquiry into the Merits of the Reformed Doctrine of 'Imputation,' as contrasted with those of 'Catholic Imputation.' By Vanbrugh Livingston." New York. 1843.

This is sufficient, and far more to the purpose than any thing we could ourselves say, and shows conclusively that Catholics "depend for salvation on the merits of Christ alone." 'These merits obtain for us not only the grace of forgiveness, but also the grace of justification, whereby our works are ren­dered meritorious. They are the source and ground of our merit, and without them we could merit nothing. Thus, in our act of Hope, we say, "0 my God ! relying on thy goodness and promises, I hope to obtain forgiveness for my sins, and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my only Lord and Redeemer."

The author of the sermon makes further quotations from the Council of Trent, which, he says, teach that "all true right­eousness is at first imparted, then increased, and afterwards re­stored if lost," by the holy Sacraments (p. 11) . Well, what, then?
"These quotations are sufficient to show the groundwork of the Papal plan of salvation; the Sacraments by their own power confer grace; thus the believer is regenerated by baptism, united to Christ by the EuclLarist, is then able to keep the whole law, and deserves heaven for his good works. A plan that is the very opposite of Christ's, as revealed in the word of God. And if salvation is only found by embracing Christ's plan, then the Papal system, so far from teaching the essential truths of salvation, teaches a system that will inevitably destroy the soul. If the question is asked, Are there not true Christians in that Church? My answer is, I think so; but they are the children of God, not because of the teachings of that Church, but notwithstanding those teachings. They are those, who, from the word of God, have gathered the system of Christ, and hold a plan of faith the opposite of that of Rome, whilst they still continue in her communidn, instead of obeying God's command, , Come out of her, my people.' "- p. 12.

"The Sacraments confer grace by their own power"; but what is their own power? Simply the power of God, who instituted them, He is himself the causa efficiens operating in the Sacrament. Is it contrary to Christianity to look upon God as conferring grace? "The believer is regenerated by Baptism." Very well. Is it contrary to Christianity to as­sert that the individual is regenerated by the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of Baptism? If we asserted that the water used in baptism, or the words pronounced by the administrator, regenerated, as efficient causes, the recipient, we should doubtless contradict the "plan of salvation." But we see no contradiction in saying that one is regenerated in baptism by the Holy Ghost operating in it. If anyone should have call­ed the burning bush that Moses saw God, he would have been wrong, and yet he might have said God was in the bush. The Sacraments are instrumental causes of grace, but God is himself the efficient cause. " We merit heaven by our good works." Granted, if be understood good works wrought in us by gmce, or by us through grace; otherwise, we deny it. The merit comes through the grace, which itself comes through the merits of Christ, and therefore it is only through the merits of Christ that we do or can merit heaven. The merit itself is of grace, not of nature. Nothing we are naturally able to do does or can merit eternal life. Our Saviour says, "Without me ye can do nothing." We do not merit the grace; that is freely bestowed in reward of the merits of Jesus Christ, and it is only through that grace woddng effectually in and through us that we are enabled to merit everlasting life.
Our liberal Presbyterian minister, we are gratified to per­ceive, thinks there may, after all, be some Christians in the Catholic Church. We are much obliged to him, and shall be still more obliged to him when he proves that there can be good Christians out of the Catholic Church. He asks us to
come out of her. Well, where shall we go, if we leave her? Into the Presbyterian communion, and offend by so doing the immense majority of the Protestant world? When all Prot­estants will agree as to what is the true Church of Christ, the true Christian faith, and "Gospel ordinances," we will con­sider the question of leaving the Church, but till then we can­not entertain it. We have had disputation and vexation enough for our short life, and we cannot consent to come out of the Church, unless we know where and to what we are to come. As matters now stand, we should, if we joined the Presbyterians, be assured by five hundred other sects that we were wrong. And the Scriptures also say something about the dog returning to his vomit, and the sow to her wallowing in the mire. We have been a Presbyterian once.

The preacher (p. 13) speaks of the" idolatrous services" of the Catholic Church. We answered this charge of idolatry in our last Review, and have no occasion to say any thing in addition to what we then said. The charge is as silly as it is false. Yet one cannot but be grieved at the ignorance or the malice that makes it, and at the fatal effect it has in keeping the great mass of Protestants from the way of life.
After these charges, the preacher proceeds to sketch the history of the Jesuits, and to show what an intriguing and dan­gerous set of mortals they are. We have no room to follow him through this part of his discourse. He falls, of course, into almost as many errors as he makes assertions. But we must leave them for the present. In the mean time we cannot forbear expressing our full conviction that the Society of Jesus is under the special guidance of Almighty God, and that he will avenge himself on its persecutors. France warred against the Jesuits and expelled them; she had her reward; - Spain warred against the Jesuits and expelled them; she is now reap­ing her reward. We want no better proof of the sanctity and utility of the Order than the fact, that Protestants, infidels, and tyrants are everywhere opposed to it. It is remarkable now what dread the word Jesuit inspires. Who are the Jesuits? Simple priests vowed to poverty, devoted chiefly to educa­tional and missionary labors, without power or influence, save what is in their faith, talents, learning, zeal, and sanctity. When such men inspire terror, the just may take courage, and thank God that we have them. The Order is unquestionably one of the most efficient instruments in the hands of God for recalling the erring, confirming the wavering, converting the unbelieving, and of consolidating the empire of our Lord in the hearts and lives of men, and hence the hostility it every­where has encountered and still encounters, Hence the nations rage and the people devise vain things against it; hence the wicked foam at the mouth and gnash their teeth, and kings and princes conspire against it. In vain. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." The Lord knoweth how to defend his own, This Order is dear to him, and for the sake of its saints and martyrs he will protect it and crown it with new honors.

To hear people talk, one would think half the world were Jesuits, They swarm everywhere. One cannot turn over a leaf, but a Jesuit will start up. They are omnipresent. They are omnipotent. They are at the bottom of all movements, ­of every intrigue, every outbreak. Nobody is safe. Yet the Order counts in all less than five thousand members, dispersed on missions among infidels, or employed in the quiet and sim­ple business of education. It is strange that such a small com­pany of men should create so much terror and alarm. Alas, "conscience makes cowal'ds of us all."
Dr. Potts tells us, "The children in the Ecclesiastical States are kept in ignorance," - p. 13. The population of the Ecclesiastical States is about two and a half millions. In these States, there are seven universities; and in the city of Rome, with a population of a hundred and fifty thousand, there are for the children of the poorer and middle classes at least three hundred and eighty schools, the greater part of them support­ed by private munificence, To assert that the Church holds that "ignorance is the mother of devotion" (ib,) betrays more ignorance than malice. If it were so, we should have fewer Protestants in the world. The Church undoubtedly holds that there may be false learning, false philosophy, deceitful, vain, that puffs up, makes its possessors wise in their own conceit, indocile, and unwilling to bow in meekness and humil­ity to the word of God; and such learning. and philosophy she unquestionably does not 'encourage'; for she holds and teaches what her invisible Spouse has said, that "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." But real knowledge, but true learning, that knowledge and learn­ing which make "wise unto salvation," she does her best to impart and diffuse. Would that we could say as much of her calumniators.

For ourselves, we do not suffer ourselves to be humbugged by the cry about education. Give us the right sort of educa­tion, and the more of it the better; give us the wrong sort, and the less of it the better. Our people are a reading people; better that they could not read than that they should read the miserable trash tbe press is now sending forth. We have lived long enough to learn that not every "whitened heap yon­der" is to be taken as so much flour. Immense danger may lurk under specious names. We are, as we have always been, the friends of education, but not of bad education, or of an education which educates for earth instead of heaven, for the devil instead of God.
'The author of the sermon thinks the aim of the Jesuits in this country is, by the education of youth; to counterwork Protestantism (p. 17). What! is the Doctor afraid of edu­cation? Is Protestantism not proof against light? We thought it was the boast of its friends that it was born of the advanced intelligence of the human race, and had the capacity to expand and adapt itself to every change of the human in­tellect. A moment ago, the Doctor upbraided us with our love of ignorance, accused us of not edudating our children ; and now he is afraid, if we educate, it will be all up with Protes­tantism. Really, it is a hard thing to please a Presbyterian Doctor of Divinity.

"They [the Jesuits] will involve this land in troubles and conflicts." - ib. The truth never yet was preached, but it pro­duced troubles and conflicts. Our blessed Lord himself said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth." No doubt, if the Gospel is preached here truly, faithfully, boldly, by its earnest and devoted missionaries, the wicked will be offend­ed, and the devil will do his best to stir up troubles and con­flicts. But we would rather have war than peace with error, with sin, with the world, with the flesh, with the devil. If Dr. Potts would not, then all we have to say is, that he does not appear to agree with our Lord and his Apostles.

But they will gain an influence which they will turn to the ruin of liberty (ib.). But we thought one of the principal charges against the Jesuits was, that they were the enemies of crowned heads, and king-killers. If so, they must be ult­rarepublicans. In monarchical governments they are dreaded as enemies of the monarchy, in republics as the enemies of pop­ular liberty! This is singular. We have before us the Re­monstrance for the Divine Right of Kings, written by the English Solomon, the learned King Jamie, in which he labors to prove that the Catholic Church is at war with kingly gov­ernment, and for that reason ought not to be tolerated. Our American Calvinists, men who began here by founding a the­oracy, or rather a minister-ocracy, and made church-member­ship the condition of citizenship, are now terribly alarmed lest the Jesuits shall overthrow democracy and set up a king, When our Calvinistic brethren shall show that they have some regard for any other liberty than the liberty of governing, we will listen to their fears on this head. We are Americans as well as they, love our country as much, and have as much at stake as anyone of them; for, in becoming a Catholic, we did not cease to be a man, a citizen, or a patriot; and we are as well convinced as we are that we are now writing, that the preservation and wholesome working of our democratic institu­tions depend on the general prevalence among our people of the Catholic religion. We say this not merely as the Catholic convert, but as the citizen who has not wholly neglected polit­ical and philosophical studies.

But it seems that "the character of the instruction imparted in our schools has nothing in it giving them a peculiar claim to popular favor, unless it be their prices." - p. 18. Perhaps the Doctor is not a competent judge, It is possible, also, that he is not acquainted with all the names the order has produced since its restoration, for we could mention some of the names which are at least "above mediocrity." As educators, the French University seems to stand in awe of them. The Doctor would do well to become acquainted with their schools, before undertaking to discuss their merits, Perhaps, were he to do so, he would not hazard the assertion, that "a graduate of one of these universities is not qualified to enter the junior class at Princeton, Yale, or any of the more respectable Prot­astant colleges of our land," The regular course of studies in our Jesuits' colleges is as thorough, as extensive, and of as high an order, as that of the best Protestant colleges, and those who take the regular and full course will have, on grad­uating, no occasion to regard themselves as inferior to the graduates of Protestant universities. University education in this country, whether by Catholics or Protestants, is, how­ever, we are willing to admit, far from being what it should be. The characteristic of our people is to "go ahead." We are impatient, averse to long, slow, and toilsome labor. What we cannot do quickly we will not do at all. We will not spend the time necessary to become thorough scholars; consequently the whole scholarship of the country, with a few individual exceptions, is limited and superficial. The Jesuits cannot at once overcome this. Their education becomes necessarily in some degree Americanized, and is, no doubt, less thorough than it is generally abroad, or than it will be here when their colleges have had time to become more thoroughly established and are more liberally supported.

But be this as it may, the Jesuits' colleges are admirably adapted to the present wants of the Catholic population. They suit us very well, and whether they suit Protestants or not is a matter of small moment. We ourselves have four sons in the colleges of the Jesuits, and, in placing them there, we feel that we are discharging our duty as a father to them, and as a citizen to the country. We rest easy, for we feel they are where they will be trained up in the way they should go; where their faith and morals will be cared for, which with us is the great thing. It is more especially for the moral and religious training which our children will receive from the good fathers that we esteem these colleges. Science, literature, the most varied and profound scholastic attainments, are worse than use­less, where coupled with heresy, infidelity, or impiety.

As to the female schools under the charge of the Ursulines, the Sisters of Charity, of the Visitation, the Sacred Heart, &c., we want no better proof of their excellence than the simple fact, that Protestants, notwithstanding their prejudices against the religious orders, send, and are eager to send, their daughters to them, and feel that they are safe so long as under the more than maternal care of the good sisters. That it is not the place that induces Protestant parents to send their daughters to our schools is evident from the fact, that the pro­ject for a sort of female university, started by some good Prot­estant ladies, at Cincinnati, if we have not been misinformed, cannot be got under way for the want of scholars, notwith­standing the expense for the pupil is to be merely nominal. The institute has funds in abundance, ladies who are pledged to instruct gratuitously, and nothing is wanting but scholars. Un­happily, these cannot be got for either love or money.

The disparaging terms in which Dr. Potts speaks of the instruction imparted by the sisters are natural enough from a Presbyterian minister, but may be refuted at any time by a few minutes conversation with a young lady educated in one of our female academies. There is something in the very atmos­phere of the Catholic schools that gives an inexpressible charm to the female character, which we have never found in a Prot­estant, not brought up in some degree under Catholic influence. There is a purity, a delicacy, a sweetness, a gentleness, a grace, a dignity, about a Catholic lady, that you shall look in vain for in a 'pmely Protestant lady, however high-born or well­bred. It is only in the Catholic lady that woman appears in all her loveliness, worth, and glory. It is Catholicity that has wrought out woman's emancipation, elevated her from her former menial condition, rescued her from the harem of the voluptuary, and made her the companion, and not unfrequently more than the companion, of man, Every Catholic daughter has a model of excellence in the Blessed Virgin, and not in vain from earliest infancy is she taught to lisp Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum; benedicta tu in mulieribus; for the Holy Mother rains grace and sweetness on all who devote themselves to her honor and implore her protection.

The association with those who honor the Blessed Virgin, see in her the model of every female grace and every female virtue, and whom she honors with her special protection, is not without its christening and hallowing influence, and the loveli­est and the noblest Protestant ladies we have ever known are those who have heen educated in Catholic schools. The good sisters have nothing to fear from the aspersions of Dr. Potts. Their pupils will speak for them, and constitute their defence. Yet, if Protestants do not like our schools, all we have to say is, let them go and institute better ones, - if they can.

But enough. We have lingered too long upon this not very remarkable sermon; but as we have done little else than to make it the thread on which to string some observations, Perbaps not wholly uncalled for nor inappropriate to the time and country, we hope we shall be forgiven. The Church may be assailed, will be assailed; but we. know it is founded on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is now firmly established in this country, and persecution will but cause it to thrive. Our countrymen may be grieved that it is so ; but it is useless for them to kick against the de­crees of Almighty God.  They have had an open field and fair play for Protestantism. Here Protestantism has had free scope, has reigned without a rival, and proved what she could do, and that her best is evil; for the very good she boasts is not hers. A new day is dawning on this chosen land; a new chapter is about to open in our history, - and the Church to assume her rightful position and influence. Ours shall yet become consecrated ground, and here the kingdom of God's dear Son shall be established. Our hills and valleys shall yet echo to the convent-bell. The cross shall be planted throughout the length and breadth of our land, and our happy sons and daughters shall drive away fear, shall drive away evil from our borders, with the echoes of their matin and vesper hymns. No matter who writes, who declaims, who intrigues, who is alarmed, or what leagues are formed, this is to be a Catholic country; and from Maine to Georgia, from the broad Atlantic to broad­er Pacific, the "clean Sacrifice" is to be offered daily for quick and dead.