When an age has abandoned God, sensuality delivers it over, like Faust, to the devil, and he becomes its deity. Unbelief is everywhere followed by superstition. Where the gods are not, the demons reign, says a modern German poet. "We are ready to believe every thing when we believe nothing," remarks Chateaubriand. "We have augurs when we have no longer prophets; witchcraft when we have no longer religious ceremonies. When the temples of God are closed, the caves of the sorcerers are opened."
It is certainly a monstrous pairing when, with boasted enlightenment, fortune-telling, card-divining, and the other superstitions of darkness go hand in hand. But it is nevertheless an old and well-known fact-one constantlydemonstrated by human experience—that unbelief is invariably associated with the grossest superstition. A rapid glance at the history of peoples in all other essentials most widely differing from each other will readily prove this.
Beginning with the Hindoos, the oldest people on the earth, we find that A. W. Schlegel has already effectually refuted the theories of modern writers on religion by demonstrating to us a steady retrogression from the spiritual to the sensual, from belief to unbelief and superstition. Dubois, who had spent thirty years among the Brahmins, and studied their philosophy, traces the degrading superstition into which the Hindoos have lapsed to their having lost faith in the religion of their ancestors. Once their schools taught the maxim, Before earth, water, air, wind, fire, Brahma, Vishnu, Chieva, sun, and stars, there was the only and eternal God, who had sprung out of himself. These pure ideas of religion have long been abandoned for an atheistic materialism. A superstitious demonology, spirit-raising, sorcery, and magic have grown out of this unbelief, and the same people now adore Kapel, the serpent, and Gamda, the bird. They observe annually a feast in honor of Darhba, an ordinary weed, and offer up sacrifices to spade and pick. To kill a cow is by them considered a crime more heinous than matricide, and their philosophers esteem it a great piece of good luck, a sure passport to paradise, if they can catch hold of a cow by the tail instead of the head, when dying. "Modern materialism," observes Dr. Hæffner, comparing the unbelief of the Hindoos with our own, "has closely approached the abyss of Buddhism." Manifestations like Mormonism, or the spiritualism of New York, Paris, and Berlin, already suggest to us the religious and moral practices of the Hindoos, and we bid fair soon to reach their lowest and vilest forms—the Lamaism of Thibet and Ceylon. As in the opening of the present century, admiration of genius led men to adore the poetical genius of Schiller and Goethe, so, changing their idols, they will eventually worship those who have deified matter. The Buddhas of modern atheism can only be the materialistic notabilities of the day; and for this reason a humorous writer recommends Carl Vogt for Delai-Lama, he being not only a high scientific but a great political authority.
Passing from the east to the west, we find, and especially in Roman history, that the increase of superstition has steadily kept pace with the diminution of faith. The religious decadence of ancient Rome dates from the close of the Punic wars and the domestic commotions of the republic, at which period we first notice that strange hankering after what is obscure and mysterious in paganism, and which attained its zenith under the Cæsars. This remark applies, however, more to the cities than the country; for, from the days of Augustus down to those of the Antonines, the latter had not yet been so generally corrupted as the former. Sulla, the dictator—to cite a few examples—put the utmost confidence in a small image of Apollo, brought from Delphi, which he carried about on his person, and which he embraced publicly before his troops with a prayer for victory. Augustus, who allowed himself to be worshipped as a god in the provinces, regarded it as an evil omen to be handed the left shoe instead of the right when he rose in the morning. He neither set out on a journey after the Nundines nor undertook any thing of importance during the Nones. When one of his fleets had been lost at sea, he punished Neptune by excludinghis image from being carried in procession at the Circensian games.
After the doctrine of Polybius, that religion is nothing more than a tissue of lies and traditions, began to prevail at Rome, the phenomena which usually attend the decadence of a people became plainly apparent. Those who are familiar with the epidemic capers of the fanatics of that age, who jerked their heads and distorted their limbs while pretending to utter the will of the gods, will be reminded of that moral and religious degradation which has produced the same effects in all countries and times—effects distinctly visible among all Christian peoples into whose life the ancient heathenism still enters, or where false civilization once more tends to barbarism. The story of Alexander of Obonoteichos shows the extremes to which superstition may lead men. This audacious impostor buried in the temple of Apollo, at Chalcedon, but so that they could be easily found, a set of bronze tablets, promising that Esculapius and his father Apollo would shortly come to Obonoteichos. He also secreted an egg containing a small snake, and mounted the next day the altar in the market-place to proclaim as one inspired that Esculapius was about to appear. He produced the egg, broke its shell, and the people rejoiced over the god who had assumed the form of a serpent. The news of this miracle attracted immense crowds. A few days later, Alexander announced that the serpent-god had already reached maturity, and he exhibited himself to the public in a partially darkened room, dressed as a prophet, with a large tame serpent—secretly imported from Macedonia—so twisted around his waist that its head was out of sight, and its place supplied by a human head of paper, whence protruded a black tongue. This new serpent-god, Glykon, the youngest Epiphany of Esculapius, received the honors of temple and oracle service. Alexander became a highly respected prophet; Rutelia, a noble Roman, married his daughter, and the prefect Severian asked him for an oracle on taking the field against the king of the Parthians.
If we wish to see how the same impostures are reënacted in our own times, we need only read the accounts of certain evening amusements at the Tuileries. There sat one night the Emperor Napoleon III., the Empress Eugenie, the Duke de Montebello, and Home, the medium. On a table before them were paper, pens, and ink. Then appeared a spirit-hand, which picked up a pen, dipped it into the ink, and wrote the name of Napoleon I. in Napoleon's handwriting. The emperor prayed to be permitted to kiss the spirit-hand, which advanced to his lips, and then to those of Eugenie. Thisséance, and one of a similar kind at the Palais Royal, where the Red Prince, known for his hatred of the church, devoutly watched the ball which Home caused to move over a table, remind us involuntarily of the Jesus-contemning apostate Emperor Julian, as he followed Maximus, the Neo-Platonist, into a subterranean vault for the purpose of seeing Hecate, and looking credulously on when the former secretly set fire to a figure of Hecate, painted in combustible materials on the wall, and at the same time let fly a falcon with burning tow tied to his feet. Fuller information on this subject the curious may glean from the stories published in the French journals, of hands growing out of table-tops and sofa-cushions, which furnish the Parisélitewith the only luxury of terror it seems still capable of enjoying; or they may consult the numerous patrons of the fashionable clairvoyants and physiognomists,the Mesdames Villeneuve, of the Rue St. Denis, as well as the successors of Lenormand, the famous coffee-grounds seer, toward whom Napoleon I. felt himself irresistibly attracted, (though he sent the luckless Cassandra occasionally to prison,) and whom the Empress Josephine held in high esteem.
The eighteenth century furnishes some striking illustrations of our theory. An epidemic tendency to unbelief, like that which characterizes this century, is without precedent since the dawn of Christianity. Its fruits recall the worst abuses of the Manichæans and the Albigenses. We do not here allude to the thousands of innocent superstitions, which Grimm says are a sort of religion for minor domestic purposes, and may be met with in all ages, but to those more glaring ones which show how inseparable are an arrogant unbelief and the grossest superstition. Hobbes, who labored already in the seventeenth century to undermine the Christian religion, was so afraid of ghosts that he would not pass the night without candles. D'Alembert, the chief of the Encyclopædists, used to leave the table when thirteen sat down to it. The Marquis D'Argens was frightened out of his wits at the upsetting of a salt-cellar. Frederick II. had faith in astrology. At the court of his successor, General Bishopswerder imposed on the king by magic tricks, and his accomplice, Wöllner, who raised spirits by the agency of optic mirrors, became minister. The custodian of the National Library at Paris related to Count Portalis that some time previous to the great revolution books on fortune-telling and the black arts were in general demand. Oerstedt speaks of a man who paraded his atheism with great insolence, but whom nothing could have tempted to pass through a graveyard after dark. Napoleon I. dispatched, in 1812, a special messenger to Beyreuth, with instructions not to be lodged in the apartments which the "white woman" of the Hohenzollerns was reputed to haunt. In the same way we see by the side of this league of unbelieving philosophers spring up such superstitious sects as the Butlerians, whose head, Margaret Butler, with Justus Winter for God the Father, and George Oppenzoller for God the Son, represented herself to be the Holy Ghost.
The alleged miraculous cures on the grave of Paris, the Jansenist deacon, in the first, and the exorcisms of the devil by Gassner, in the second half of the eighteenth century, form another instructive chapter in the history of superstition. While the Archbishop of Vontimiglii, the Bishop of Sens, and other distinguished prelates, denounced the cures performed with the earth from the grave of Paris as a cheat, Montegon, the atheist, wrote three volumes to prove their authenticity. While the Archbishop of Prague and the papal chair, by a decree of the Congregation of Rites issued in October, 1777, condemned the miraculous pretensions of Gassner, Walter, Leitner, and other deistic physicians, upheld them. While the mountebank Cagliostro, who pretended to have learnt in Egypt the secret of generating magical powers from reflecting surfaces, was called to account at Rome, the Free-Masons of Holland made him visitator, andfêtedhim in their lodges. The unbelief of the eighteenth century reached at last its culminating point during the French revolution in the abolishment of the Supreme Being, though the rites of Mlle. Aubry or Mme. Momoro were as silly as the worship of the cotton plucked from Voltaire'srobe de chambre. The names in the philosophical calendar remind us strongly of theHindoo worship of the spade and pick, and who knows but some super-enlightened atheist may be prepared to subscribe to the Brahminic dogma about the ox, an animal which has already played a prominentrôleat a red-republican festival? Burke's prediction has been fulfilled, "If we discard Christianity, a coarse, ruinous, degrading superstition will replace it."
This war against faith and every thing spiritual has continued into the nineteenth century, until once more gross materialism is found on every side. Already, during the fourth decade, the darkest superstition threatened to overwhelm the so-called intelligent world with the manifestations of magnetism. The campaign against the supernatural opened with the trial of the devil. As the StrasbourgCatholicsatirically observed, the very day and hour had been fixed when it was required that he should establish his own existence by tangible proof. Disregarding the summons, the scamp was promptly declaredin contumaciamoutlawed and cashiered along with the entire host of unclean spirits. The same summary mode of treatment was pursued with the opposite side, and the same judgment was passed on the angels, cherubim, and seraphim. All were pronounced to be equally tasteless, scentless, inaudible, and imponderable, and declared to be mere creatures of the imagination. Their Lord and Master was next put on trial; at first very considerately with closed doors and in a secret inquisitorial manner. The results of the trial were put on record, and for a while imparted only to the initiated, who gradually divulged the news to the masses. At last the spirituality of our own soul was arraigned, and its activity explained as the result of a mere change of matter. The Beelzebub of ancient superstition was thus exorcised and expelled; but he soon returned to the house which the besom of criticism had cleaned, and brought back with him seven other evil spirits, so that nothing was gained by the proceeding. The age, having cut loose from the invisible, naturally plunged into a most abject dependence on the visible. As the negro races kneel before their fetiches, trees and serpents, so this century kneels before sleeping somnambulists, dancing and writing tables, and mixtures and nostrums from the apothecary shop.
Should civilization much longer continue on the present road, the most deplorable consequences must follow. As in all former times, so in this age unbelief has led where it always will lead—to superstition. Man, created for immortality, needs the wonderful, a future, and hope. When such a sceptical enlightenment as distinguishes modern philosophy has sapped the foundations of religion, its absence leaves in his thoughts and feelings an immeasurable void which invites the most dangerous phantoms of the brain. The moment man boldly declares, "I no longer believe in any thing," he is preparing to believe in all things. It is high time that so-called philosophy should again draw near to that religion which it has misunderstood, and which alone is capable of giving to the emotions of the heart a generous impulse and a safe direction.
It needs but a slight glance at the condition of things around us to discover, as a consequence of the criminal and most deplorable neglect of the moral education of a large proportion of our children, that if they be not already on the broad road to ruin, they give, at least, little hope of becoming useful members of society. This remark is intended chiefly, but not exclusively, for boys, whose constantly increasing lawlessness, connected with the steady growth of crime among us, cannot fail to awaken the most serious apprehensions in the mind of every attentive observer of passing events, while nothing adequate to the emergency is offered to check this growing evil; yet on the children of the present generation are based our hopes for the future of our country. Every one knows with what facility these young, fresh minds may be guided toward what is truly good; for, though the tendency of our human nature to the descending scale in morals as well as in physics is sufficiently evident, the one may be counteracted with almost as much certainty as the other, if judicious measures be early taken to give them a right direction. The writer has had much experience in the domestic training of boys, and yields the heartiest adhesion to the precept, "Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This training, however, is not by means of pampering animal appetites or self-will, but by inculcation of strict though gentle laws of obedience and self-denial. These habits once acquired, a solid basis is laid for good principles and conduct, and these can, I venture to say,alwaysbe fairly established within the first ten years of life, which have been justly pronounced the most important period of human existence, for they contain the germ from which the future character is formed. A profound thinker remarks, that "in the education of the family is concentrated the strength of the nation;" an observation which may well be applied to these United States, where the moral character of every individual, through our system of universal suffrage, assumes a certain weight, and thus, to a greater or less extent, influences the best interests of the whole country. We may here be permitted, in view of the immense importance of this education of early childhood, to suggest a hint of a strange inconsistency which is scarcely ever noticed in the systems of education adopted to prepare the fathers and mothers of our posterity for their respective callings. Everywhere, even wheremoralinfluences are neglected, means are provided for the preparation of boys for their career in life; yet, notwithstanding the multitudinous volumes of philanthropy expended upon "woman's sphere," "her rights," etc., etc., we have scarcely heard of a single well-directed effort, beyond thechancesof the domestic circle, to educate young women in the supreme, the inexpressibly momentous knowledge of the vocation that must surely be the lot of nearly every one of them. They are destined to be mothers—to train up tender minds for time and for eternity! To them is confided the most precious of our earthly treasures; for what is untold gold but dust in comparison with the well-beingof our children? Why are they not imbued with the most profound respect for the dignity of motherhood, as well as instructed conscientiously in its practical duties and responsibilities?
When the mother's work is ill done, or, as is but too often the case, totally neglected, of what avail are the labors of the professor, but to make a bad man intellectually strong and more capable for the accomplishment of his evil designs? Who can predict the safety of the noblest structure if superimposed on a false or insecure foundation? Knowledge is a power equally available for good or evil purposes, according to the direction given by the moral force that applies it. May the Almighty disposer of events teach us even at this late day to learn wisdom from the experience of the past. If, for example, a single volume were prepared and placed among the closing studies of the course in girls' schools, embracing instructions in the duties of woman—as mistress of the family, as the wife, the mother, whose highest faculties are requisite in the early training of children—and if the whole were placed in so attractive a garb as to win their love and admiration for these womanly duties and perfections, might we not hope that many young and guileless minds would be gained from the mazes of folly ever ready to obscure their true instincts and affections? Craving pardon for this digression, we proceed to the primary object of this article.
A VISIT TO THE AGRICULTURAL AND REFORMATORY COLONY OF METTRAY, NEAR THE CITY OF TOURS, FRANCE.
A VISIT TO THE AGRICULTURAL AND REFORMATORY COLONY OF METTRAY, NEAR THE CITY OF TOURS, FRANCE.
This admirable institution, which has received the highest stamp of public approbation in the form of more than eighty kindred institutions that have adopted its rules and practice as their models, in France, Belgium, and other countries, was founded about thirty years since, by the venerable M. Demetz, at that time a distinguished magistrate, in union with a saintly man[280]whose honored remains repose in the neighboring cemetery. M. Demetz still lives to bless and guide this noble monument of his early wisdom and beneficence.
In the midst of a beautiful and highly cultivated rural district, the pretty village of Mettray is built in the form of a spacious hollow square, and consists of some twenty or thirty detached cottages of brick, symmetrically placed on two opposite sides of the quadrangle, each having pendent roofs to protect the walls. A circular basin of running water occupies the centre, and the open space is planted with fine shade-trees. Between each of the cottages there is a gallery about thirty feet wide, and roofed to protect from rain the plays of the inmates of the adjoining cottages. All are white and of two stories, chiefly covered with climbing vines and flowers.
The entrance is on the side opposite the fine church, which, with the school-house and grounds, fills that portion of the spacious quadrangle. On entering, between two houses of larger dimensions, (one being appropriated to the use of the director, the other to the normal school, in which the future teachers of Mettray are trained in their work,) the visitor is a little startled at the view of a large ship with all its spars and rigging, moored in the solid earth. This is intended for the instruction of boys who manifest a taste for the sea. The view of the whole is most pleasing. Every cottage bears an inscription on its front, which on inspectionmakes known the interesting fact that each building is the donation of the individual lady or gentleman whose name is inscribed thereon, or of some benevolent association. Thus the expenses of building, usually so great as in many instances to render such a foundation hopeless, are here readily and piously assumed by various benefactors. The manifest advantages of these separate buildings, each adapted for the occupation of some thirty to thirty-five boys, will appear in the sequel. In the architecture,[281]all is of the simplest kind; for it is thought best not to awaken luxurious tastes or habits among a class destined to earn their living by the sweat of their brow. The boys are not crowded together in large masses, but enjoy a free and open circulation of air, conducive to health and energy; and the inmates of each cottage are under the permanent government of a director and sub-director, who are regarded as the fathers of the household, and live with them, eating, sleeping, etc., in the same house, and to whom the boys become devotedly attached, and they thus enjoy, so far as it is possible, the blessing of the family relations. Sisters also are there, in their separate apartments adjacent to the church, prepared to nurse the sick in the infirmary, and to give their invaluable influences and aid, especially to the little ones, on every proper occasion.
The village is adapted to receive seven hundred boys,[282]from seven or eight years of age and upward. The "colony," as it is termed, is chiefly agricultural, but many of the children, from various causes, being better adapted to indoor employments, are applied to trades, and in winter, when the farm work is interrupted, all the boys are employed in the shops, to acquire the art of manufacturing their own tools. In these shops, where, as we have said, the boys are permanently associated in separate families, they are taught to be tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, agricultural instrument manufacturers—in short, any or every trade that may be made useful or profitable.
In the rear of the village are the farm buildings, the stables, cow-houses, etc. etc., with the gymnasium and a small pond of running water for bathing and swimming. Further on is the cemetery, with its alleys of cypress and well-kept gardens, (for gardening is a prominent branch of industry here;) and we may well imagine that nothing is neglected to beautify the surroundings of the honored tomb of their first benefactor, and of the lowly graves of the departed who were once their companions. Flowers—beautiful flowers—are strewed everywhere, and with their fragrance seem to hallow the sacred place.
Neither walls nor ditches nor any means of restraint or confinement are resorted to for the compulsory seclusion of these seven hundred juvenile culprits, who have all been adjudged as fit subjects for this penitentiary; yet escape is so rare as to be almost unknown. As we entered the square, the boys, ranging from seven or eight to twenty years of age, were enjoying their midday recreations—leaping, playing, laughing, or shouting at their pleasure. Within a few minutes, at the sound of a clarionet, their sports suddenly ceased, and a moment later, at a second call, they separated, each to join his "family" at its allotted ground, to prepare to march; and then a lively quick-step was heard. This was the signal of the band, composedof their comrades most expert in music, who had meantime taken their post near the centre of the square, at which the various groups, joined by their two directors, filed off cheerily, each to its home. The musicians then laid aside their instruments and hastened after their companions. They partake of their frugal but wholesome and cheerful meals in the second story of their respective cottages, accompanied by their directors, and in the evening, when the last repast is ended, the tables are expertly suspended against the walls, and a single row of hammocks, which were laid aside after the same fashion before breakfast, are again placed in order for the night. The rooms are perfectly well ventilated, and there is a great gain in economy from this double arrangement. After each meal there is recreation, and the hour being past, music again recalls each family to the square, from which, to the sound of lively airs, they move off in high spirits to their various employments. Here goes a class of farmers, there are the gardeners, and further on, the carters, etc. etc., all on their way to the farm, while the lesser numbers of shoemakers, tailors, and others turn their steps in the direction of their various shops, and a goodly class wind their way to the school. Thus the children are accustomed to repair to their allotted labor as if on a holiday. Music salutes their departure, and its notes leave a joyous impression on the mind. The lower floors of the cottages are all occupied as workshops.
From this brief sketch may be inferred the regularity that prevails in the colony. Every thing is done to habituate the boys to a willing and cheerful performance of their duty. No harshness is permitted that might again chill these young hearts, that have once been abandoned to vice before they were capable of discrimination. The system of rewards is quite original, and serves its purpose admirably. For grave offences confinement in a cell is the only punishment found necessary. Lying is regarded as the worst of faults.
Within the narrow limits prescribed for this article it would be impossible to give any adequate account of an institution which, wherever it is known, is recognized as being equalled only by such others as most closely obey its spirit and maxims. Its founders have aimed, so far as possible, to restore and cultivate the family affections, prematurely shattered through vicious examples, by dividing, as we have seen, into groups this large mass of youthful humanity, and forming them into families under regulations tending to establish a sincere and lasting attachment among its members. In their respective cottages they live and work together, in the interchange of mutual kindness and regard, and are inspired with the idea that each, in a certain sense, is responsible for the good conduct, the respectability, the happiness, of his brothers. The ever-ready sympathy and motherly counsels of the sisters must not be forgotten. The directors at Mettray are, thus far, laymen; but in many other like institutions it has been found impossible to dispense with the aid of religious orders. In this country we should be obliged to have recourse to them for want of laymen possessed of the needful qualifications; for they must give their entire lives to the work.
The success achieved by this institution during its thirty years' existence in the entire reformation of the youths subjected to its wise and wholesome discipline, is unexampled. The statistical tables of France, unsurpassed in exactness, inform us that an average of 96.81% of the youthbrought up at Mettray are restored to society, thoroughly reformed, and continue to fulfil their parts in life as useful citizens. They are usually detained in the colony to the age of twenty-one, when suitable situations having been provided, according to the trade of each, they are allowed to depart. Still, a sort of guardianship is maintained for years over those within reach; and the young men who find employment among the neighboring farmers are expected to pass the Sundays at their old home; a privilege which they relish in the highest degree. Nearly half their number engage in agricultural work. Others enter the army or navy, in both of which several have attained honorable distinction. Many are married, and present good examples in domestic life. An honorary association has been formed, which affords additional incentives to good conduct after leaving Mettray. Two years of an irreproachable life entitles each who merits it to a diploma; and this secures him a membership.
It is really difficult to do justice to this admirable institution without being suspected of exaggeration. To understand the wonder-working power of the wisdom that pervades it, that transforms the juvenile criminal into a sober-minded, industrious, and devout man, it must be seen and closely scrutinized. Christian education has taken the place of the penal code, and the boy is "trained in the way he should go," on the firm basis of religious principles of faith and practice. The general expression beaming on every countenance, of cheerful confidence, even of the gentle and affectionate temper that prevails, affords an affecting contrast to that of the newly-arrived boy, fresh from the haunts of vice. His pale and haggard looks betray evil propensities, as well as wasted health. His little heart is already filled with hatred, restrained only by the fear that he betrays, either by attempts at a hypocritical humility or an impudent daring. Years pass on, and this incipient wild beast becomes benevolent, frank, and good.
Within a few years a kindred institution has grown up, adjoining the village, but skilfully concealed from the public gaze by thick shrubbery. This is the "Paternal Home," for the reformation of the disobedient sons of families in the higher walks of life. A close white wall, behind which trees and climbing vines appear, is pierced in the centre by an equally close door. A small bell-pull is touched, and the visitor enters a pretty court laid out with flowers and shrubs. Through this the home appears at the distance of a few paces. We enter a narrow hall, furnished with simple elegance. Doors on either side lead into small rooms, containing a bed, table, book-case, etc. Engravings representing some generous or noble action adorn the walls. As the youth becomes more docile and studious, a singing bird in a cage is given him for a companion; and, finally, he is permitted to occupy two rooms. During all this period, the boy is made to understand that he is the object of the tenderest affection of his family, who inflict the greatest pain upon their own feelings in subjecting him to this temporary punishment, which is solely for his own good. Professors attend him, and continue, without interruption, the collegiate course which has been interrupted, and he has the daily benefit of fresh air on foot, or on horseback, attended by a professor.
It must be understood that this sojourn at the Paternal Home is unknown to all but the family. M. Demetz alone is made acquainted withhis name.[283]To others who approach him, he is simply Mr. A——, B——, or C——. Gradually this isolation produces its effects—and the intractable spirit in this seclusion begins to meditate, to reflect, to examine himself—to condemn his former vices, and to love the studies that alleviate the weariness of solitude. Two or three months usually suffice to effect this favorable change. He finds relief in occupation, and as he carries on the course of the classes he has left, he begins to take an interest in competition. Let it not be imagined that this seclusion, though severe, is allowed to affect the health of the recluse. This would be entirely to misunderstand the parental foresight of the founder. The boys take long walks in the country, each in turn, as we have said, accompanied by a professor. They visit the neighboring farms, and sometimes enter a cottage on a visit of charity; practise gymnastics, or take lessons in fencing and when their conduct is unexceptionable, they are invited to dine with M. Demetz. If, after returning home, they are tempted to relapse into bad habits, they are sent back again, but to a more austererégime. Such is the effect produced by this system, at once tender and severe, that very often his former pupils request of M. Demetz the privilege of again passing a few days of calmness in peaceful retreat, or to finish some task that demands seclusion, at the Paternal Home. To them, the retreat where they were restored to a sense of duty is really a home of the heart, and the hand that raised them up is blessed as that of the father, who spared neither severity nor tenderness for their complete restoration. What wonder that he is the object of their devoted affection? Is there no American capable of imitating such a model?
The preamble and first four chapters of the dogmatic constitutionde Fide Catholicahaving been irrevocably disposed of in the public session held on Low-Sunday, are now before your readers and the world.
The withdrawal of the veil of secrecy from this portion of theschemahas removed from the eyes of many, the scales of doubt and misgiving, blinded as they were by the repeated statements of certain newspaper correspondents; and as future decrees come to light, they will equally confound the pretensions of the false prophets, and amply reward the patient hope of the faithful.
The Vatican Council took a fresh start on the following Friday, April 29th. In the general congregation of that day, the fathers passed from faith to discipline, and began to discuss the reformedschemaon theLittle Catechism.
After the mass, which was said bythe Archbishop of Corfu, the council was addressed by Mgr. Wierzchleyski, Archbishop of Leopoli, in Galician Poland, who spoke in the name of the deputation on discipline, of which he is a distinguished member.
Speeches were afterward made by the Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux, Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, and by the Bishops of Guastalla, Saluzzo, and St. Augustine, Florida.
The next morning, Saturday, the 30th, the discussion was resumed. The Archbishop of Avignon, and the Bishops of Luçon and Parma made some remarks on the general features of theschema. These prelates were followed by the distinguished Bishop Von Ketteler of Mayence, the Bishops of Plymouth and of Clifton in England, and the Bishop of Trèves in Germany; all of whom confined themselves to some particular points of the document. Bishop Von Ketteler, who belongs to a baronial family in Germany, before becoming a chief in the church militant, served his country with distinction as colonel in the German army. He must be at least six feet high, has quite a soldierly bearing, and is concise and to the point in his remarks. The last speaker was the Bishop of Seckau in Germany, a member of the deputation.
As the rules of the council authorize the members of the deputation to reply to the observations of the fathers at any stage of the discussion, the committee avail themselves of that privilege by making the final speech, which in ecclesiastical convocations, as well as in civil meetings, is generally the most telling one.
At the conclusion of the remarks by the Bishop of Seckau, the president declared that the debate on theLittle Catechismwas closed, and that the vote would be taken on the following Wednesday, on all the amendments proposed.
In the congregation of Wednesday, May 4th, the Bishop of Tyre and Sidon celebrated mass in the peculiar and impressive form of the Maronite rite. The president asked the prayers of the fathers for the venerable Bishop of Evreux in France, who died in his seventieth year, and survived only two days after returning home from the council.
Permission was granted to nine foreign bishops to return to their sees. Among them were the Bishops of Arichat and Charlottetown, in British America. The regular business commenced with a second speech by the Bishop of Seckau, who reviewed all the amendments proposed in the preceding congregation. The final vote was then taken on theLittle Catechismas a whole. Each bishop votedviva voce. The termplacetwas used by the prelates who gave unqualified approbation to it;placet juxta modumby those who had some modification to propose, while assenting to its general features; andnon placetby those who dissented from the measure. The total number of votes given was 591.
TheLittle Catechism, which has received no small share of public attention, now "lies over" till the final seal of approbation is stamped upon it at the next public session.
The general congregations were resumed on the 13th. After the usual religious exercises, leave of absence without the obligation of returning was granted to the following prelates:
The Bishop of Gezira, Mesopotamia, Syriac rite; the Bishop of Merida, Venezuela, South America; the Bishop of Ferns, Ireland; the Bishop of Goulbourne, Australia; the Bishop of Puno, Peru; the Bishop of Santiago, Chili; the Archbishop of Marasce, Cilicia, Armenian rite; and the Bishop of Mardin, Chaldea, Armenian rite.
The Bishop of Gezira, Mesopotamia, Syriac rite; the Bishop of Merida, Venezuela, South America; the Bishop of Ferns, Ireland; the Bishop of Goulbourne, Australia; the Bishop of Puno, Peru; the Bishop of Santiago, Chili; the Archbishop of Marasce, Cilicia, Armenian rite; and the Bishop of Mardin, Chaldea, Armenian rite.
The oral discussion then commenced on the great and fundamental questionde Romani Pontificis Primatu et Infallibilitate, which is comprised in a preamble and four chapters, and which forms the first part of the dogmatic constitutionde Ecclesia Christi.
These four chapters had already passed through several manipulations before being submitted to oral discussion. First, the text had been distributed to the fathers, who in due course of time transmitted their observations upon it to the deputationde fide. These observations were then maturely examined by the members of the deputation, and a printed report of their views on them was sent to the residence of each bishop.
The Bishop of Poitiers, in the name of the deputation, opened the discussion with a lucid exposition and vindication of the substance and form of the text. With this lengthy and learned speech closed the congregation of the 13th.
Next day, the debate was resumed. The Venerable Constantine Patrizzi, Cardinal Vicar of Rome, and, with the exception of Cardinal Mattei, the oldest member of the Sacred College, commenced the discussion. He was followed by the Archbishop of San Francisco, United States; the Archbishop of Messina, Sicily; the Archbishop of Catania, Italy; the Bishop of Dijon, France; the Bishop of Vesprim, Hungary; the Bishop of Zamora, Spain, and the Bishop of Patti, kingdom of Naples.
On Tuesday, the 17th, Archbishop Dechamps, Primate of Belgium, addressed the fathers in the name of the deputation. Speeches were also delivered by the Bishops of St. Brieux, France; Santo Gallo, Switzerland, and of Rottenburg, Würtemberg. The president announced the death of the Bishop of Olinda, in Brazil, and recommended him to the prayers of the council.
Wednesday, the 18th. The Archbishop of Saragossa opened the discussion, representing the deputation. The other speakers in the congregation were all cardinals, namely, Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Archbishop of Prague, Bohemia; Cardinal Donnet, of Bordeaux, and Cardinal Rauscher, of Vienna.
Thursday, the 19th. Cardinal Cullen of Dublin was the first speaker, and was succeeded by the Cardinal Archbishop of Valladolid, Spain, and by the Greek-Melchite Patriarch of Antioch.
Friday, the 20th. The Primate of Hungary had the advantage of the opening speech. The venerable Dr. McHale came next. "The Lion of the fold of Juda," as he is called, looks ashaleas a man of forty-five, though he is a bishop since 1825. The Archbishops of Corfu and Paris occupied the pulpit during the remainder of the session.
Saturday, the 21st. Bishop Leahy, of Cashel, reviewed some of the preceding speeches as a delegate of the deputation, and was followed by the Bishops of Strasburg, Forli, and Castellamare, Italy.
Intense and unwavering interest was manifested in each of the foregoing congregations, both on account of the grave character of the subjects under deliberation, and the eminent prelates that took part in the discussion. I wish that, together with the names, I were permitted to give also the living words which fell from the lips of these learned and eloquent prelates. They would prove to you that the Christian oratory of the fourth and fifth centuries is reëchoed in the nineteenth, and that it is confined to no nation, but extends over the length and breadth of the Catholic world.
The longest speech yet pronounced in the council was delivered by the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, who spoke for an hour and forty-two minutes. Its length was the more remarkable,as Cardinal Cullen trusted to his memory, and illustrated his discourse by an abundance of facts and figures.
It is well known that all the bishops not only have the same faith, but speak the same language in council; and, with the exception of the orientals, and members of religious orders, they wear the same episcopal garb. Yet it is worthy of remark that, in spite of this uniformity in dress and language and outward mien, scarcely has a prelate opened his mouth from the pulpit when his nationality is at once discovered. He utters hisshibboleth, which reveals him to his brethren as soon as Ephraim was betrayed to Galaad.
You will hear a bishop whisper to his neighbor, That speaker belongs to the Spanish family of nations. He hails either from the mother country or from one of her ancient colonies of South America, or Mexico, or Cuba. How does he know? He forms his judgment not merely from the little green tuft you see on the crown of the speaker'sbirettumor cap, but chiefly from his pronunciation. He will detect the Spaniard at once by his guttural sound ofqui, and his lispingplacet, besides many other peculiarities of utterance.
The Spaniards and their South American and Mexican cousins, though models of episcopal gravity, have not acquired the reputation in the council of being generally the best models of elocution. Their delivery is said to be sometimes indistinct, and their pronunciation so peculiar that, like the rose in the wilderness, they waste the odor of their wisdom on the desert air. Gems of thought fall, indeed, in profusion from their lips, but they escape occasionally in the too rapid current of words.
There are several bishops of Spanish origin, however, who have distinguished themselves alike by distinctness of utterance and by a remarkable fluency. Among others, I might mention the Bishop of Guamango, in Peru, and the Bishops of Havana, and S. Concezione, in Chili.
The next speaker is evidently an Italian. You know it from the musical sentences, which flow from his lips in such a smooth and measured strain that he almost appears to be reciting a select piece of Virgilian poetry. He might seem, were not his classical style so natural to him, to be aiming at making a good impression not only on your mind and heart, but also on your ear. Whenever the lettercis followed byeori, he gives it the soft sound ofch, as in our English wordcheerful; and he is careful to soften down every word which would sound harsh or grating. Sometimes, indeed, a prelate of another country will adopt for the nonce the Roman style of pronunciation; but nobody is deceived. Jacob's voice is recognized, though he tries to clothe his words in the form of his brother's.
It is almost impossible for an Italian bishop to make a speech without a formal introduction and peroration, either because of his respect for his hearers or for the great classical masters. He may protest he will be brief, but that word has a relative meaning. But it must be admitted that, for delicacy and refinement of thought, for fecundity of ideas, and clearness of exposition, some of the Italians have seldom been surpassed.
The prelate now before you, as you can tell at once, belongs to the Teutonic family. He is an Austrian, or Prussian, or Bavarian, or perhaps a Hungarian. The German pronouncesghard beforeeori, contrary to the usual practice of Latin speakers. He makesschsoft before the same vowels, pronouncing, for instance, the wordschemaas if it were spelledwithout ac. Hence the gravity of the English-speaking bishops is occasionally relaxed, on hearingschematissound as if it were writtenshame it is.
The German is more tame in delivery than either the Italian or the Spaniard. His colder climate tends to subdue his gestures, as well as to moderate his sensibility. He is not so fond of dealing in compliments as the Italian speakers, but goes at oncein medias res. He is generally short and precise, and more inclined to appeal to your head than to your heart. At the same time, religious and logical, the sublime superstructure of his faith is built upon the solid foundation of common sense.
If a French prelate were not known by hisrabat, he would be easily distinguished by his utterance of Latin. He has a strong tendency to shorten the infinitive in the second conjugation, and to lay a particular stress on the last syllable. There is indeed no bishop in the council who is so readily recognized by his voice as the Frenchman. Every one can say to him what the Jews said to St. Peter: "Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech doth discover thee." But, like Peter, he has no reason to be ashamed of the discovery; for his speech is not less pleasant than peculiar. He is no exception to the cultivated taste of his countrymen. He is generally well understood, because he speaks distinctly, and listened to with pleasure, because to solid learning he unites an animated and a nervous style.
For obvious reasons, a continental writer would be the fittest person to pronounce a correct judgment on the style and Latinity of the English-speaking prelates of the council.
I will venture, however, an observation. Though the style of the American, English, and Irish prelates may have less claim to merit for polish and studied classical Latinity, their discourses will certainly compare favorably with those of their episcopal brethren from other parts in strength of argument, in clearness of expression, as well as in their telling effect upon their discriminating audience.
The bishops of these countries adopt what is called the parliamentary style. They are usually concise, and always practical. They are in earnest. They look and talk like men fresh from the battle-field of the world, who have formidable enemies to contend with, and come before the council well stocked with experimental knowledge. They content themselves with a brief statement of the measure they propose, and a summary of the reasons best calculated to support it, without occupying the council with elaborate disquisitions.
The number of English, Irish, and American bishops up to the present, who have delivered oral discourses before the Vatican Council is comparatively small. It must not, however, be inferred from this that the other prelates of these nations have all remained inactive spectators, for many of them have handed in written observations on the subjects under deliberation.
The following are the English-speaking fathers who, up to the present date, (June 2d,) have addressed the council:
Archbishops Spalding, Kenrick, and Purcell, and Bishops Whelan and Verot, United States; Archbishop Connolly, Nova Scotia; Archbishop Manning, and Bishops Ullathorne, Vaughan, Clifford, and Errington, England; Cardinal Cullen, and Bishops Leahy, McEvilly, and Keane, Ireland.
None of the Scotch or Australian bishops have as yet spoken.
Three hundred years have elapsed since the close of the Council of Trent. Of the two hundred and seventy bishops who assisted at that council, only four were from the British Isles, of whom three were Irish and one English; and we think it doubtful if these three Irish bishops spoke the English language.
The Council of the Vatican has upward of one hundred and twenty English-speaking prelates, representing not only Great Britain and Ireland, but also the United States, British America, Oceanica, and the East Indies; and should the twentieth œcumenical council be called within the course of another century, judging from the past, it is not unlikely that the English tongue will then be what the Italian is to-day—the language of the majority.
Comparisons have been drawn between the Council of the Vatican and the United States Congress. Perhaps it would be easier to point out the lines of divergence than those of resemblance between these two deliberative bodies.
As to the relative ages of the members of the Council and the members of Congress, the former are decidedly in advance of the latter. I have taken the pains to refer to theAnnuario Pontificiofor 1870, which gives the age of nearly all the bishops of the Catholic world. From this book I learn that the oldest bishop in the council is in his eighty-fifth year, while the youngest bishop, the Vicar Apostolic of North Carolina, is thirty-five. The Archbishop of Lima, who was prevented by infirmities from coming to Rome, is the dean of the entire episcopacy, being now in his ninety-sixth year. Thus we see that both extremes of age meet on the American continent; North America having the youngest, and South America the oldest representative of the episcopal hierarchy.
Of the thousand bishops now in the church, fully three fourths are between the ages of fifty-five and ninety-six. The ages of the other fourth range between thirty-five and fifty-five. Scarcely half a dozen of these prelates are more advanced in years than the Holy Father, who yet exhibits more physical endurance and mental activity than any bishop ten years his junior.
So much for a comparison as to age. Next as to the speeches in both assemblies. The bishops embrace a wider field in their discourses than our senators. They are circumscribed by no limits of country. They make laws which bind the consciences of two hundred millions of souls—Europeans, Americans, Australians, Asiatics, and Africans; while Congress legislates for scarcely one fifth that number, and these confined within a portion of a single continent. Hence, in this single aspect of the case, the great ecclesiastical synod as far excels the Federal Congress of the United States as Congress itself surpasses the New York Legislature, or this latter the city council.
The speeches of the Vatican Council are usually much shorter than those delivered in Congress. The addresses of the fathers seldom exceed half an hour,[284]except those of the members of the deputations, whose remarks generally embrace a critical analysis of the questions before the council and a review of the amendments proposed by the bishops, usually occupying about the space of an hour. The reason for this brevity is obvious. No prelatewould wish to be guilty of the bad taste of occupying unnecessarily the precious time of his brother bishops. He is fully convinced, on ascending the pulpit, that every word he says will be carefully weighed in the balance by a discriminating body of judges, who are influenced only by sound logic, and not by plausible rhetoric.
Besides their brevity, perhaps I might also add that the speeches of the fathers are characterized by more personal independence, sincerity, and earnestness of tone, than those of our legislators in Washington, while it must be admitted that public opinion commonly attributes to the episcopal character a higher order of virtue. Yet, apart from this consideration, we may find a reason for this difference in the fact that our national representatives have more temptations to sin against singleness of purpose than the prelates of the council. Besides the members on the floor of the House and Senate, there are often well-filled galleries ready to hiss or to applaud, according to the prejudices of the day, and we know how human nature dreads the finger of scorn and loves the popular plaudits. There is a political party which must be sustainedper fas et nefas, and though last, not least, there are dear constituents to be pleased.
The fathers of the council have no such temptations to withdraw them from the strict line of duty which conscience dictates. All their general congregations are so many secret sessions. There are no frowning or fawning galleries to allure or to intimidate. There is no party lash hanging over the bishops' heads; for they have no private measures to propose in behalf of their "constituents." Indeed, one of the rules of the council requires that every bill brought before it must necessarily affect the general interests of the church, and not the special wants of any particular diocese or country.
The consoling unanimity which marked the public session held on Low-Sunday, seems to have put an effectual quietus on the erratic correspondent of the LondonTimes; for he no longer, like another Cassandra, utters his prophetic warnings to the council, since the fathers, on the occasion alluded to, by a single breath demolished all his previous predictions about the threatened rupture of the assemblage.
Directed, no doubt, to view every thing in Rome with distorted vision, this writer literally fulfilled his instructions. If he met bishops walking to St. Peter's, he would despise them as a contemptible set. Should they prefer to ride, they were, in his estimation, pampered prelates crushing poor pedestrians under their Juggernaut. Should aschemabe approved by the bishops after a brief discussion, they were pronounced by our seer a packed jury, the obsequious slaves of the pope. If the discussion happened to be prolonged, he would solemnly announce to his readers the existence of an incipient schism among the fathers. The truth is, the gentleman could never ascend high enough to comprehend the true character of the bishops. He could not associate in his mind independence of thought and the fullest freedom of debate with a profound reverence for the Holy Father.
Upon every question, from the beginning of the council, there has been prolonged and animated discussion. A council necessarily supposes discussion ever since that of Jerusalem. Deprive an œcumenical synod of the privilege of debate, and you strip it at once of its true character and the bishops of their manhood. No stone was left unturned that the whole truth might be brought to light.
But if there has been "in dubiis libertas," there has been also "in necessariis unitas." There is no Colenso in the Council of the Vatican. With regard to doctrines of the Catholic faith already promulgated, there has not been a whisper of dissent. A bishop might as well attempt to pull down the immortal dome of Michael Angelo suspended over his head, as touch with profane hands a single stone of the glorious edifice of Catholic faith.
There has been also "in omnibus caritas." Never was more dignity manifest in any deliberative assembly. A single glance at the council in session, from one of the side galleries, would at once impress the beholder not only with the majesty of the spectacle, but also with the mutual respect which the members exhibit toward each other, and the patient attention with which the speakers are listened to, often under a trying ordeal of several hours' continuous session. As for violent scenes, there have been none, except in the imagination of some correspondents; nor bantering, nor personalities; nor collisions between the presidents and speakers. Since the commencement of the discussion on the presentschema, upward of sixty fathers have already spoken, only one of whom was called to order—and he at the end of his discourse, because, in the judgment of the president, he had broached a subject foreign to the debate. In a word, there is learning without ostentation; difference of sentiment without animosity; respect without severity; liberty of discussion without the license of vituperation.
May 23d, the congregations were resumed. The opening speech was delivered by the Armenian Patriarch. The Bishops of Mayence, Angoulême, and Grenoble occupied the attention of the fathers during the remainder of the session.
On the following day, permanent leave of absence was granted to eight prelates, among whom were two Canadians, namely, the Bishop of St. Hyacinthe, and the coadjutor of Dr. Cooke, Bishop of Three Rivers, lately deceased. The council was then addressed by the Bishop of Sion, Switzerland, one of the deputation, and by the Bishops of Urgel, Spain, S. Concezione, Chili, and Guastalla, Italy.
In the congregation of the 25th, England and Ireland had the whole field to themselves, the only speakers being Archbishop Manning, and Bishops Clifford and McEvilly. Dr. Manning's reputation as an English speaker is established wherever the English language prevails. His Latin oration in the council, which was but three minutes shorter than that of his eminence of Dublin, exhibited the same energy of thought and the same discriminating choice of words which are so striking a feature of his public discourses. Dr. Manning has a commanding figure. His fleshless face is the personification of asceticism. His sunken eyes pierce you as well as his words. He has a high, well-developed forehead, which appears still more prominent on account of partial baldness. His favorite, almost his only gesture, is the darting of his forefinger in a sloping direction from his body, and which might seem awkward in others, but in him is quite natural, and gives a peculiar force to his expressions. His countenance, even in the heat of an argument, remains almost as unimpassioned as a statue. He knows admirably well how to employ to the best advantage his voice, as well as his words. When he wishes to gain a strong point, he rallies his choicest battalion of words,to each of which he assigns the most effective position; then his voice, swelling with the occasion, imparts to them an energy and a power difficult to resist.
The next congregation, the sixtieth from the opening of the council, was held on the 28th, the speakers being the Bishops of Ratisbonne, St. Augustine, Csanad and Gran Varadin in Hungary, and Coutance in France. At the close, the president announced that the fathers henceforth would meet at half-past eightA.M.instead of nine.
The fathers assembled again on the 30th. The Archbishop of Baltimore delivered the opening speech, which lasted about fifty minutes. He spoke without the aid of manuscript, confiding in his faithful and tenacious memory. He was succeeded by the Bishops of Le Puy in France, Bâle in Switzerland, Sutri and Saluzzo, Italy, Constantina, Algiers, and the Vicar Apostolic of Quilon, on the coast of Malabar.
The following day, indefinite leave of absence was granted to Bishops Demers of Vancouver, and Hennessy of Dubuque, and the newly consecrated Bishop of Alton was permitted to remain at home. The Archbishop of Utrecht commenced the debate, being the first of the bishops of Holland that has addressed the council; the other speakers were the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Trajanopolis, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, who spoke without notes, and the Archbishop of Halifax. The death of the saintly and apostolic Archbishop Odin, of New Orleans, was announced. The venerable prelate finished his course among his kindred near Lyons, on the auspicious festival of the Ascension.
The sixty-third general congregation was held on the 2d of June. The speakers were the Archbishop of Fogaras, Transylvania, Roumenian rite, and the Bishops of Moulins, Bosnia, Chartres and Tanes.
At the close of the session, the death of the Rt. Rev. Thomas Grant, Bishop of Southwark, England, was announced. Dr. Grant was born of English parents in Ligny, in the diocese of Arras, France, November 25th, 1816, and was promoted to the episcopal dignity June 22d, 1851. He was much esteemed by his English brethren in the episcopacy for his profound learning and solid judgment, as well as for his amiable disposition. He was one of the deputation on oriental rites.
Thus far, fourteen general congregations have been held on the four first chapters of theDogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ. Sixty-one fathers have already spoken on the general aspects of the question, leaving forty-nine prelates who have declared their intention to speak on the same subject. As soon as the draught of theschema in generalhas been sufficiently discussed, the debate will commence on each particular chapter.
As our readers would like, no doubt, to form a more intimate acquaintance with the venerable bishops now assembled in council, especially with those who play a more conspicuous part in its deliberations, we propose in the present number to give a brief sketch of a few of the twenty-four fathers who constitute the committee on faith.
It is quite unnecessary to our present purpose to speak of the two American prelates belonging to this deputation, namely, the Archbishops of Baltimore and San Francisco, who are well known in the United States, and whose learning, zeal, and piety are not only gratefully acknowledged at home, but fully appreciated here, as the merited honors conferred upon them testify.
We will commence with Aloysius, Cardinal Bilio, president of the deputation on faith, and one of the five presiding officers of the council. He was born May 25th, 1826, at Alexandria, the celebrated fortified town of Piedmont, which of late years has played so important a part in the history of northern Italy. His father was of a noble family. At the early age of fourteen the youth, already remarkable for great piety and a maturity of character beyond his years, asked to be admitted into the congregation of St. Paul, founded by the venerable Antonio Zaccaria. He was received as a student and postulant, and devoted himself to study with an earnestness which soon broke down his health, apparently never very strong. He was obliged to suspend his studies for several years. In fact, for a time it was thought his health never would rally. At last, however, he did recover, and at once returned to the purpose from which his mind and heart had never wandered. Having finished his course and received ordination, he was made in turn professor of Greek, of rhetoric, and of mental philosophy in the college of Parma, and afterward in the university of the same city.
It is the custom of the religious orders and congregations which devote themselves either entirely or in great part to teaching, first by a long and thorough course of study to prepare carefully their younger members for future labors in the professorial chair, and then in their early years of teaching to appoint them from one chair to another, through the whole cycle, perhaps. So Father Bilio was sent from Parma to Caravaggio, and then to Naples, occupying various chairs, and finally was made professor of theology and canon law in the Barnabite College at Rome. His professorships were for the world outside his congregation. Within it, his brethren recognized his high personal qualifications, and elected him to various offices in their congregation, until at length he was made assistant-general.
Rome could not fail to appreciate qualities and talents like those of this learned and exemplary, religious and able man. He was pressed into service in many of the departments for transacting religious affairs, and finally, June 23d, 1866, he was named cardinal. He presided over one of the sub-commissions of theologians, who studied out and prepared the draughts for the council, and he is, as was said in a former number, chairman of the special committee or deputation of twenty-four prelates to treat of all matters relating to faith.
With the single exception of Cardinal Bonaparte, Cardinal Bilio is the youngest member of the Sacred College.
France, the eldest daughter of the church, is represented in the deputation by Bishop Pie of Poitiers, and Archbishop Regnier of Cambrai.
Louis Francis Desiré Edward Pie was born at Pontgouin, in the diocese of Chartres, the 26th of September, 1815. Ordained priest in 1839, he exercised at first the functions of curate of the cathedral church of Chartres; and in 1845, the bishop of that diocese appointed him vicar-general, notwithstanding his comparative youth.
From that period, the young priest was ranked among the most distinguished preachers of France, and was heard with great success in different cities of that country. His panegyric of Joan of Arc, which he preached at Orleans, is one of his best discourses.
Named Bishop of Poitiers under the presidency, he took possession of his see in December, 1849. He was then only in his thirty-fourth year, an unusually early age for conferring the mitre in Europe.
Bishop Pie directed his eloquence and zeal on various occasions against two sorts of adversaries: those who sap the foundations of faith itself by reducing every thing to naturalism, both in religion and society; and those who attempt to weaken Catholicity by the ruin of the temporal power. Against the former the bishop issued threeSynodal Instructions on the Principal Errors of the Present Time. Against the latter he wrote, three years before the last Italian revolution, hisSynodal Instruction on Rome considered as the See of the Papacy, in which he ably refuted the sophistries of those who sought the demolition of the temporal power.
Those best acquainted with the Bishop of Poitiers say that his pulpit oratory is characterized by an authority, brilliancy, and force of argument worthy of St. Hilary, whose successor he is.
In personal appearance Bishop Pie is prepossessing. His round, full face without a wrinkle, and his auburn hair, make him seem much younger than he really is. Though stout, and even inclined to corpulency, he is quick and active in his movements.
He speaks with admiration of the late Bishop of Boston, with whom he studied at St. Sulpice, Paris. The Sulpician fathers have been accustomed to select as catechists in the parochial church some of their ablest and most promising students. To both seminarians a class was assigned, and the Bishop of Poitiers says that his American friend, afterward Bishop Fitzpatrick, always excelled in his position.
Emmanuel Garcia Gil, Archbishop of Saragossa, in Spain, was born in St. Salvador, March 14th, 1802.
Having completed his literary studies in his native city, he passed through his philosophical and theological course in the diocesan seminary of De Lugo. In 1825, he entered the order of St. Dominic, in which he made his religious profession November 1st, 1826.
He was ordained the following year, and immediately after the responsible position of professor of philosophy and theology in the convents of the order at De Lugo and Compostello was assigned to him.
Expelled in 1835 from Spain, with all the members of his order, he soon returned to his post at De Lugo, where for thirteen years he filled the chair of philosophy and divinity in the seminary of which he was successively director and vice-rector.
Having subsequently devoted himself to the more active pursuits of the ministry, he labored with great success in preaching the word of God, and in the administration of the sacraments.
Appointed to the see of Badajoz in December, 1853, he was consecrated in the city of De Lugo by the Archbishop of Compostello; and five years later, at the request of the Spanish government, he was transferred to the archiepiscopal see of Saragossa.
Among his fellow-members of the Committee on Faith, Mgr. Garcia Gil has the merited reputation of being profoundly conversant with the writings of his great master, the "Angel of the Schools," and hence is called among them the St. Thomas of the deputation.
Another prominent member of the committee is Mgr. Hassoun, Patriarch of Cilicia for the Armenians. He was born in Constantinople, June 13th, 1809, of Armenian parents. He passed through his elementary course in his native city, and completed his studies in Rome, where, in 1832, he obtained the degree of doctor of divinity. A few months later, having been ordained priest, and named apostolic missionary, he was sent to Smyrna, where he devoted himself tothe Armenian Christians of that city. Removed thence to Constantinople, Father Hassoun exercised the ministry in several churches, and filled the office of chancellor in the archiepiscopal palace. Chosen by the primate as vicar-general and visitor of the diocese and province, the young Armenian priest was unanimously elected by the assembly of his nation civil prefect of the Armenian church, in which office he was confirmed by the Ottoman Porte.
In 1842, he was appointed coadjutor to the Primate of Constantinople, with the right of succession; and on the death of the latter, in 1846, he was chosen to fill the vacant see.
On the 16th of September, 1866, the Armenian archbishops and bishops assembled in council proclaimed Mgr. Hassoun Patriarch of Cilicia, with the title of Anthony Peter IX. The holy see confirmed the nomination, and decided that in future the patriarchal see of Cilicia and the archi-primatial see of Constantinople, which hitherto were separate and independent, should form one patriarchate, under the title of Patriarchate of Cilicia, with residence at Constantinople.
By his exertions the episcopal hierarchy was reëstablished in 1850 in the ecclesiastical province of Constantinople, and a special see for the Armenians erected in Persia. He has succeeded in building in the Turkish capital, and endowing a seminary to serve for the whole ecclesiastical province. In 1843, Mgr. Hassoun founded the first female convent in the same capital; and we may well imagine the degree of pious audacity that was required to plant this colony of virgins in the midst of the sultan's seraglios. This institution is devoted to the education of young girls, and to the instruction of women abandoning schism. The convent has sixty nuns, who educate three hundred poor girls, besides some resident scholars.
The patriarch, by an imperial firman, is charged with all the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the Armenians who are subjects of the Ottoman empire. He gratefully acknowledges the kind disposition always manifested toward him by the government of the Sublime Porte, which has extended to him every facility for carrying out the works of his ministry.
Victor Augustus Isidore Dechamps, one of the most prominent members of the deputationde fide, was born at Melle, Eastern Flanders, in the château of Scailmont, December 16th, 1810. His early education was intrusted to private tutors, under the eyes of his father, who was a laureate of the ancient University of Louvain. He afterward completed his studies of humanity and philosophy with his brother Adolph, who was successively Belgian minister of foreign affairs and minister of state.
In the national movement, from which sprung the independence of Belgium, the two brothers, though yet young, distinguished themselves as publicists during this glorious epoch of patriotism.
In 1832, M. Dechamps entered the seminary of Tournai, studied afterward in the Catholic university of Mechlin, and concluded his theological course at Louvain, where he was ordained priest, December, 1834, by Cardinal Sterckx.
Having soon after joined the Redemptorist congregation, Father Dechamps made his novitiate in 1835. Five years later, his career as a preacher began, and in this capacity he greatly distinguished himself.