FOOTNOTES:

Eternal Punishment and Eternal Death.An Essay. By James Barlow, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin. London: Longman and Co., 1865.

There is a class of writers at the present day, who believe themselves good Christians, and yet whose spirit contrasts very strangely with the spirit of the Gospel. It was a maxim of St. Paul, that every understanding should be made "captive unto the obedience of Christ".[2]But in the nineteenth century Christian philosophers are found who presume to sit in judgment on the doctrine of Christ, and to measure it by the standard of human reason. Mr. Barlow's book, we regret to say, partakes largely of this spirit, equally at variance with the faith of the Catholic Church and with the maxims of Inspired Scripture. It is fit, therefore, that theIrish Ecclesiastical Recordshould raise itsvoice to expose the dangerous tendency of his principles and the fallacy of his arguments.

The Apostle Paul was "rapt even to the third heaven", and was there favoured with those mysterious revelations "which it is not granted to man to utter".[3]Nevertheless, when he looked into the profound depths of God's decrees, and saw at the same time the littleness of human reason, he was forced to exclaim: "How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!"[4]Not so Mr. Barlow. He has ventured to sound those depths which St. Paul could not fathom; he has been bold enough to scrutinize those judgments which St. Paul could not comprehend. The decree of eternal punishment, pronounced by Jesus Christ against the wicked, does not harmonize with Mr. Barlow's notions of morality.[5]He has weighed the malice of sin in the scales of human philosophy, and he has pronounced that it does not "deserve" eternal torments. Therefore, he concludes, must this "detestable dogma" (p. 135) "be struck from the popular creed" (p. 144). Such is the general scope and tenor of a book on which we propose to offer a few remarks.

Our readers are well aware that the eternal punishment of the wicked is the unmistakable doctrine of Sacred Scripture. It is foreshadowed in glowing imagery by the Prophets; it is set forth in simple and emphatic words by Jesus Christ; it is borne to the farthest end of the earth by the burning zeal of the Apostles. We need not be at any pains to search for texts. The following are familiar to us all. "Then shall He say to them also that be on His left hand: Depart from me, you cursed intoeverlastingfire which was prepared for the devil and his angels". "And these shall go intoeverlastingpunishment; but the just into lifeeverlasting".[6]Let it be observed, that the punishment of the wicked is here declared everlasting, in the very same sense as the happiness of the good is said to be everlasting. On another occasion our Divine Lord thus admonishes His disciples: "If thy hand or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than, having two hands or two feet, to be cast intoeverlastingfire".[7]Or, as St. Mark has it: "To be cast intounquenchablefire; where their wormdieth not, and the fireis not extinguished".[8]This dreadful judgment of the wicked had been already announced by St. John the Baptist to the multitude who flocked around him in the desert of Judea. Speaking of Christ, whose coming he announced, he said: "He will gather His wheat into His barn, but the chaff He will burn withunquenchablefire".[9]And long before, it was written by the prophet Isaias: "And they shall go out, and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; their wormshall not die, and their fireshall not be quenched".[10]Again, we read in the Apocalypse: "And the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented day and nightfor ever and ever.... And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire".[11]These passages speak plainly for themselves; they stand in need of no commentary from us. True, it is an awful doom; and he who ponders well upon that fire which shall never be quenched, that worm which shall never die, must look forward to the great accounting day with "fear and trembling". But we must not hesitate to accept a doctrine which comes to us from the lips of Eternal Truth, in language so clear, so simple, so divine.

Indeed, some of the texts we have adduced seem to Mr. Barlow himself so very conclusive, that he candidly admits he can offer no satisfactory solution. "I trust I shall not be misunderstood to assert that there are no passages in the New Testament relating to the question, which present formidable difficulties. This would be simple dishonesty. Such passages exist, and though the difficulties involved in them may be much extenuated, they cannot be wholly removed"—p. 86. The "difficulties", indeed, are "formidable", and "cannot be wholly removed", because in these passages it is simply asserted that the punishment of the wicked will be eternal, whereas Mr. Barlow maintains that it willnot.

So far the testimony of Scripture. As for Tradition, we shall content ourselves with Mr. Barlow's own admission. He tells us that "the eternity of future punishments has been, in truth, the immemorial doctrine of the great majority of the Church"—Preface, p. v. And in another place, he speaks of "a longing to make out a doctrine of everlasting punishment, which has in all ages characterized the genuine theologian"—p. 86. Such, then, are the overwhelming odds against which this intrepid writer boldly takes his stand, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text, "the immemorial doctrine of the great majority of the Church", and the teaching of "the genuine theologian in all ages". Surely he is a dauntless warrior, and must come forth to the conflict armed with mighty weapons, and clad in impenetrable armour. Not so, indeed; but his understanding, which should have been made "captive unto the obedience of Christ", has shaken off that sweet and gentle yoke; he has looked with too curious a scrutiny into the mysterious decrees of God, untilat length his dizzy reason has become the dupe of false principles and fallacious arguments.

"The civilization of the nineteenth century jars with a belief in everlasting torments, to be inflicted by the All-Merciful on the creatures of His hand"—Preface, p. iv. This is the sum and substance of Mr. Barlow's difficulty. The words of eternal truth, and the faith of the universal Church, are weighed in the balance against the civilization of the nineteenth century; they are found wanting, and they must be cast aside. We cannot contemplate this sentiment without a feeling of horror and amazement. One would think that, if such a contradiction did really exist, it would be the duty of a Christian writer to elevate modern civilization to the standard of revealed truth. But this is not the principle of Mr. Barlow. He looks down, as it were, from the vantage ground of the nineteenth century, and he proposes to reform the faith of Christ, and to raise it up to the level of his own philosophy.

We are satisfied that this dreadful principle contains the germ of all that Mr. Barlow has written against the doctrine of eternal punishment. But it does not always appear in its naked deformity. Sometimes it assumes the grave and imposing garb of philosophical argument; sometimes it is adorned with the graces of rhetoric; and thus for a time it is made to appear plausible, and even attractive. In the following passage it may be recognized without much difficulty: "I cannot conceive any finite sindeservingsuch a doom. I cannot conceive it proceeding from amercifulbeing. The sentence appears to be clearly repugnant not only to mercy, but to justice. It surely requires some explanation. Theonus probandirests upon its supporters; let us see what they have to allege on its behalf".[12]

Mr. Barlow "cannot conceiveany finite Sin deserving such a doom!" Mr. Barlow "cannot conceive" eternal punishment proceeding from a merciful being! That is to say, one of the "incomprehensible decrees" of God exceeds the limits of Mr. Barlow's conception, and this is a sufficient reason "to strike it from the popular creed" (p. 144), and to reform the venerable symbols of Christian faith.[13]He adds, indeed, that "the sentence appearsto be clearly repugnant not only to mercy, but to justice". But when we look for a proof of this daring assertion, we are told that theonus probandirests upon us. Now, this is a simple issue. Does theonus probandirest with us or with Mr. Barlow? Let our readers judge for themselves. Mr. Barlow professes to believe in the Bible. We urge upon him the solemn declaration, so often repeated by Christ and His Apostles, that the wicked "shall go into everlasting punishment". True, he replies, I cannot gainsay these words; but "I believe that the doctrine is untenable" (Preface, p. iv.), because it is repugnant to the attributes of God. Surely it devolves upon him to prove this alleged contradiction between the attributes of God and the words of Christ. As for us, we have nothing to prove. We cling fast to the words of eternal truth, with a firm confidence that they cannot be shaken by the arguments of human wisdom, nor even by the boasted civilization of the nineteenth century.

The ingenious sophistry by which our author seeks to shift the burthen of proof from his own shoulders, may be exposed more clearly by the following illustration: God alone exists from eternity. This world, therefore, which we inhabit must have been created by Himout of nothing. This is an obvious and a certain conclusion. But some one might object: "This opinion is untenable if creation out of nothing is an impossibility; and 'I cannot conceive' that it is possible. How do you prove that it is consistent with the Divine attributes?" Mr. Barlow, we think, would give little quarter to such an objector. And yet this is the very course of reasoning he has himself pursued. The answer in each case is exactly the same. Weknowthat creation is possible, because it has actually taken place. And so, too, weknowthat the doctrine of eternal punishment is in harmony with the attributes of God, because He that cannot deceive has told us that the doctrine is true. If we cannotseethat harmony, it is because the judgments of God are incomprehensible, His ways unsearchable to our finite understanding.

But we must do justice to Mr. Barlow. Though he maintains that the burthen of proof rests with his adversaries, yet he does set himself to demonstrate that the doctrine of eternal punishment contradicts the attributes of God. Now, in this part of his task, we freely admit that much of his reasoning is cogent and indeed conclusive: but it falls very short of the conclusion which he labours to establish. Thus, for example, in the case of a little child that "cries about taking its medicine", Mr. Barlow cannot bear the idea that this trivial fault will be punished with eternal flames (pp. 19, 20). Or, "you fall asleep for a minute or two in church, at afternoon service on a hot day: of course you have not been attending to the service; but, honestly and truly,do you clearly see and feel that those two minutes' sleepdeserves at the hand of Infinite Justiceeverlasting agony?" (p. 38,note). Again, "a quick little child of two years old, or even younger, knows very well that it is naughty to get into a passion and strike his mother or his nurse: his elders, however, do not think a great deal of this little ebullition of temper, and consider it amply expiated by sending him to bed. But the child may suddenly die in his sin. Will the 'All Merciful' consign him to everlasting tortures?" (p. 44). In another place (chap. v.) he adduces several texts to prove that "punishment after death, finite in duration, as the lot ofsome, is the unambiguous doctrine of Holy Scripture" (p. 116). There is nothing in all this to which we can object. But we maintain that such arguments are worthless in the cause of which Mr. Barlow is the advocate. He proves, indeed, that there are many sins which do not deserve eternal punishment. He proves too from the Inspired Writings, that, beyond the grave there is a state of expiation, in which many souls must needs be purged from such minor transgressions before they can appear in those mansions of heavenly purity where "nothing defiled shall enter".[14]

Our readers will here recognize without difficulty the Catholic doctrine of venial sin, and the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Unconsciously Mr. Barlow has become for a time the champion of Catholic faith. But the question at issue has not to do with the innocent little babe that beats its nurse, nor the wayward child that refuses its medicine, nor yet with the just man that, through human frailty, "shall fall seven times, and shall rise again".[15]The controversy in which Mr. Barlow has engaged regards the future lot of thewicked—of those who,with full deliberation, have committedgrievoussin; of whom St. Paul has said that they "shall not possess the kingdom of God";[16]in a word, of that unhappy band to whom the Great Judge will one day speak those dreadful words: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire". It yet remains for Mr. Barlow to demonstrate that this fire willnotlast for ever, that it will one day be extinguished, and that the torments of thewickedwill cease.

We may pass on, then, to other proofs. "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring glad tidings of good things".[17]This is the sentiment of St. Paul and of the Prophet Isaias. But, argues Mr. Barlow, if the gospel of eternal punishment be true, he that goes forth to preach the gospel to the heathen is a curse and not a blessing. Now what are the practical results of our missions to the heathen? "Is not the testimony of all unbiassed witnesses who have travelledamong them uniform? Success is infinitesimal, failure all but universal. What impression has been made by our associations on the hundred and fifty millions of India? Taking the estimates of the missionaries themselves, who are not unnaturally disposed to magnify the good results of their work, the nominal converts are barely one in two thousand, while the number ofbonâ fidenative Christians, 'possessed of saving faith', may be regarded as practically evanescent. Remembering, then, these facts, and assuming as a not improbable proportion, that a zealous missionary preaches the Gospel to a thousand who reject it for one whom he converts to Christ—God help him—the load of human misery which that man has brought about must surely weigh heavy on his soul.... Has any tyrant, a recognized scourge of the human race, brought down such storms of misery on his species as must be ascribed to the active missionary who has failed? And they have all failed—failed a thousand times over for once they have been successful" (p. 14, 15).

On reading this very remarkable passage we are struck with the ingenuous candour of the writer. It is nothing new for us to learn that Protestant missions in pagan countries have been all but absolutely barren. But it is something new to find a distinguished Protestant Divine, who frankly admits this inconvenient fact. Mr. Barlow must, indeed, find it difficult to persuade himself that the Church which sends forth such missions, is the same as that which Isaias addressed in those well known words: "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy tabernacles; spare not; lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes. For thou shalt pass on to the right hand, and to the left, and thy seed shall inherit the gentiles".[18]"And the gentiles shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes round about and see: all these are gathered together, they are come to thee: thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side. Then shalt thou see, and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when the multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the strength of the gentiles shall come to thee". This magnificent prophecy, Mr. Barlow must confess, has no fulfilment in the Protestant Church.

But let that pass. It is not with thefactbut with theargumentthat we purpose to deal. And first, it occurs to us that the argument, if valid, would prove not only against the doctrine which Mr. Barlow impugns, but also against that which he defends. He certainly will admit that a grievous sin against God is a dreadful crime; that it far transcends every other evil whichexists or can be conceived. He maintains, moreover, that each one will receive, in the world to come, rewards and punishment "according to his works". Therefore, the punishment reserved for the sinner, even though it were not eternal, must yet be something dreadful to contemplate. And the missionary, the number of whose real converts, "'possessed of saving faith', may be regarded as practically evanescent", brings down this dreadful punishment on all to whom he preaches the gospel. Hence, if we accept Mr. Barlow's argument, even on his own doctrine of finite punishment, the missionary will be a curse to heathen nations; not indeedso greata curse as if the punishment of sin were eternal, but still acurseandnota blessing. He must therefore answer his own argument, or else he will be forced to maintain that there is no punishment for sin in the world to come.

To us his reasoning offers little difficulty. If the heathen, when he rejects the Christian faith, commits a deliberate grievous sin, he will certainly be punished accordingly. But this punishment must surely be ascribed to his own wickedness, and not to the labours of the missionary. The work of the missionary is a blessed work; it is the heathen himself that has changed it into a curse. We may illustrate this explanation from the pages of Sacred Scripture. The wicked servant in the gospel, if he had not received the one talent from his master, could not have buried that talent in the earth. And yet, for this fault he is "cast into exterior darkness", and condemned to "weeping and gnashing of teeth".[19]Will Mr. Barlow say that the gift of his master was not a blessing but a curse? If so, he arraigns the conduct of God Himself, whom this master represents. Again, if our Divine Lord had not selected Judea for the scene of His public mission, the Jews would never have been guilty of the frightful crime of Deicide, nor would they have incurred the terrible chastisement with which that crime was punished. Yet who will deny that the presence of the Incarnate Word amongst them was a special favour—the last and greatest—vouchsafed by a loving Father to that unhappy people? We need only add that the words of holy Simeon, addressed to the Virgin Mother on the presentation of her Infant Son in the Temple, are still applicable to every zealous missionary: "Behold, He is set up for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel";[20]for the resurrection of those who hearken to the glad tidings, and eagerly accept the grace which He brings; for the fall of those who spurn the one, and trample the other under foot.

The next argument to which we shall invite the attention of our readers, is founded on the condition of the blessed in Heaven. "But the terrible difficulty arising from the relations of the savedto the lost cannot even be mitigated" (p. 22). This "terrible difficulty" is presented to us in two different forms. First, Mr. Barlow implicitly appeals to the divine precept of fraternal charity. Every one is bound to love his neighbour as himself. Now, if the blessed in Heaven fulfil this precept, they must be intensely miserable. For the proof of true charity is that we feel for our neighbour's sufferings, the same grief as if they were our own. Therefore the saints must experience the same internal anguish for the torments of the damned as if they endured these torments themselves.[21]This argument may be dismissed in a few words. The precept of fraternal charity does not extend to the future life. The blessed inhabitants of Heavencannotlove the wicked in Hell; much less are theyboundto love them. They see God face to face, and they love Him with a resistless impulse. Whatever else is good and pleasing to Him, that they love for His sake; whatever is bad and offensive in His sight, theycannotlove, because theyseethat it is unworthy of their love. A divine precept to love the devil and his unhappy companions in misery, is an idea peculiar to Mr. Barlow.

The second form in which this "terrible difficulty" appears is more plausible than the first. Many a saint in Heaven will miss from the mansions of the blessed the friend of his bosom. Many a fond sister will look in vain for her gay and dissipated, but yet warm-hearted and affectionate brother. Many a loving mother will behold afar off the undying torments of her darling son. Are we to suppose that the generous affections of the human heart are extinguished in Heaven? If so, then man must be morally worse in Heaven than he was upon earth. And if not, it cannot be true that "mourning and sorrow shall be no more"[22]in the City of God. Here is the argument as it is put by Mr. Barlow. "I firmly believe that if, in the fruition of the Heavenly Kingdom, a time should come when I shall be capable of forgetting that one who truly loved me in this world ... is alive in hopeless torment—scorched by the everlasting flame—gnawed by the undying worm—I must have sunk down lower in the moral scale before this came to pass. I must have become more deeply immersed in heartless selfishness than I am now. And this, which I believe of myself, I believe of every one else. There is only one explanation of this frightful difficulty. We must assume that the redeemed are morally worse in Heaven than they were on Earth" (p. 24).

This difficulty, which appeals more strongly to the feelings than to the judgment, is by no means peculiar to the doctrine ofeternalpunishment. It must be explained as well by those who say the torments of the damned will come to an end, as by thosewho say they will not. If the saints must grieve at theeternalpunishment of their friends, they must certainly grieve at thetemporalpunishment of their friends. The latter grief will be less poignant, it is true; but it will still be inconsistent withperfecthappiness. Let Mr. Barlow explain how the inhabitants of Heaven will be free fromallsorrow, if the punishment of Hell be limited in duration, and it will be easy to show they will be equally free if the punishment be eternal.

As for us, we see no necessity for any explanation. God has promised to make His saints happy. Surely He is able to do it. Mr. Barlow thinks they will be weeping for their friends. But is it not written that "God will wipe away all tears from their eyes"?[23]In what manner this will be done it is not necessary for us to explain. Yet we may be allowed to offer a conjecture, which, as it seems to us, is supported alike by reason and by revelation. We would say that, in the saints every affection that has not for its object what is good and pleasing to God, will be utterly extinguished; and therefore they willcease to lovethose unhappy souls that have been condemned to Hell. The reason is clear. The saints in Heaven see things as they are; and hence theycannotlove that which is wicked and hateful in the sight of God. In Mr. Barlow's mind this severance of earthly ties must come from an increase of "heartless selfishness". To us it seems to flow from perfect love of God. Neither does it follow, as he supposes, that the saints have "sunk down lower in the moral scale". On the contrary, it is manifest they have been raised up immeasurably higher. On Earth their affections were often guided by mere human motives, and, at best, were governed by an erring human judgment; in Heaven, they are moulded with the most perfect fidelity after a Divine model.

With these remarks, we take leave of Mr. Barlow and his book. We cannot, however, close this brief paper without directing the attention of our readers to a very serious consideration which this book suggests. The Reverend Mr. Barlow is a Fellow of Trinity College. And there are many who would ask Catholic parents to entrust the education of their children to him and his colleagues. We have seen a specimen of his principles; in particular we have seen that, according to his views, "the civilization of the nineteenth century jars" with a doctrine which every Catholic is bound to believe. Is it safe, then, for a Catholic youth to gather his ideas of modern civilization from the lips of such a teacher as Mr. Barlow? We are told, indeed, it is forsecular educationalone that a Catholic student should go to Trinity College: that he may learn hisreligion from other sources. But, if we understand the words aright, secular education must surely include modern civilization, and modern civilization, as taught by Mr. Barlow, is contrary to Catholic faith. These are simple facts. Our readers may draw their own conclusion.

FOOTNOTES:[2]II.Cor., x. 5.[3]II.Cor., xii. 2-4.[4]Rom., xi. 33.[5]See Mr. Barlow's book, pp. 37 (note), 38, 39.[6]Matth., xxv. 41-46.[7]Matth., xviii. 8.[8]Mark, ix. 42, 43, 44, 45, 47.[9]Matth., iii. 12.[10]Is., lxvi. 24.[11]Apoc., xx. 9, 10, 15.[12]Pp. 38-39. The words in italics are so printed in Mr. Barlow's book.[13]See pp. 7-8, where this principle is advanced in a still more confident tone, and with even less regard for the maxims of the Gospel. We extract the following passage: "I do truly believe that if every man, before repeating the Athanasian Creed, would sit down quietly, and—say for five minutes—steadily endeavour to realize in his imagination, as far as he is capable of doing it, what the contents of the notion 'Eternal Torments' are, we should find an enormous increase of so-called heresy with respect to these portions [the "damnatory clauses"] of the Creed. The responses, 'Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly', would be nearly confined to the clerk". Five minutes' reflection is quite enough, in the estimate of Mr. Barlow, to convince every man that he ought to abandon the faith of ages.[14]Apoc., xxi. 27.[15]Prov., xxiv. 16.[16]I.Cor., vi. 9, 10;Gal., v. 21.[17]Rom., x. 15;Isaias, lii. 7.[18]Isaias, liv 2, 3.[19]Matth., xxxv. 30[20]Luke, ii. 34.[21]See Mr. Barlow's book, p. 22; also p. 17.[22]Apoc., xxi. 4.[23]Apoc., xxi. 4.

[2]II.Cor., x. 5.

[3]II.Cor., xii. 2-4.

[4]Rom., xi. 33.

[5]See Mr. Barlow's book, pp. 37 (note), 38, 39.

[6]Matth., xxv. 41-46.

[7]Matth., xviii. 8.

[8]Mark, ix. 42, 43, 44, 45, 47.

[9]Matth., iii. 12.

[10]Is., lxvi. 24.

[11]Apoc., xx. 9, 10, 15.

[12]Pp. 38-39. The words in italics are so printed in Mr. Barlow's book.

[13]See pp. 7-8, where this principle is advanced in a still more confident tone, and with even less regard for the maxims of the Gospel. We extract the following passage: "I do truly believe that if every man, before repeating the Athanasian Creed, would sit down quietly, and—say for five minutes—steadily endeavour to realize in his imagination, as far as he is capable of doing it, what the contents of the notion 'Eternal Torments' are, we should find an enormous increase of so-called heresy with respect to these portions [the "damnatory clauses"] of the Creed. The responses, 'Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly', would be nearly confined to the clerk". Five minutes' reflection is quite enough, in the estimate of Mr. Barlow, to convince every man that he ought to abandon the faith of ages.

[14]Apoc., xxi. 27.

[15]Prov., xxiv. 16.

[16]I.Cor., vi. 9, 10;Gal., v. 21.

[17]Rom., x. 15;Isaias, lii. 7.

[18]Isaias, liv 2, 3.

[19]Matth., xxxv. 30

[20]Luke, ii. 34.

[21]See Mr. Barlow's book, p. 22; also p. 17.

[22]Apoc., xxi. 4.

[23]Apoc., xxi. 4.

The last year terminated with the establishment in Dublin of an association, which, we trust, whilst protecting the material interests of the country, will contribute to put an end to religious oppression and intolerance, and to spread the blessings of Catholic education through all Ireland. Undertaking a task so meritorious in itself, and so much in accordance with the objects of theRecord, the association will have our best wishes and co-operation. Its first meeting was held in the Rotundo on the 29th of December last, and a vast number of influential and respectable laymen, from city and country, many clergymen, and several archbishops and bishops attended. Its proceedings were most impressive, and the speakers all displayed great moderation accompanied with energy and firmness in their addresses. We may add that the speeches of the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Cloyne, on the claims of tenants for compensation for beneficial improvements, were most eloquent and convincing; that the Bishop of Elphin made an excellent and learned defence of the rights of Catholics to a Catholic system of education; and that the Archbishop of Dublin, supported by Mr. O'Neill Daunt, proved to the satisfaction of all present that the Protestant Establishment in Ireland is a nuisance and an insult, and ought to be abolished. We regret that the limits of this periodical will not allow us to enter fully into the various questions discussed at the meeting: we must restrict ourselves to a brief article on the topics most closely connected with the objects of theRecord—we mean the question of education and of the Church. We cannot, however, but recommend our readers to assist the association by their influence, their counsels, and contributions, being full of hope that Ireland will derive great advantages, temporal and spiritual, from its labours.

The Lord Mayor, by whose influence and authority the meeting had been convened, having taken the chair, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Cullen, was called on to propose the first resolution. Before doing so he explained the objects of the association, and showed that they were so moderate, so reasonable, and sonecessary, that no liberal minded man could refuse to support them.

"It is proposed", said he, "to protect liberty of religion by relieving the great majority of the inhabitants of this country from an oppressive and degrading burden, forced on them for the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment, which they look on as a galling and permanent insult; it is proposed to encourage the growth of learning, by holding out equal hopes to every class, and putting on a footing of equality all who engage in the career of letters and science; and finally it is proposed to restore prosperity to this country, by giving inducements to the people to invest their capital in useful and permanent improvements".

Having thus stated the reasons for founding the new association, the Archbishop briefly alluded to the necessity of a good education, to the services of the Catholic Church in promoting science and letters, and to the glorious mission of carrying the light of the gospel and true civilization to pagan nations, which was given to Ireland for centuries after her conversion. That mission was interrupted by Danish and Anglo-Saxon invasions. Continued attempts to force the Reformation on our forefathers, the prohibition of Catholic schools, and a most galling system of penal laws, afterwards reduced our country to a state of misery and degradation, in which it was impossible for the masses of the people to approach the fountains of knowledge, or to render services to other countries. As soon, however, as liberty began to dawn, active efforts were made by the Catholic laity and clergy to repair the ruins of past times, and within the present century innumerable schools, colleges, convents, and other educational establishments, have been called into existence, which are rendering great services to the country, and preparing to make it again what it once was—a land of sages and saints. The exertions and sacrifices made in this holy cause are a proof of the zeal of the Catholics of Ireland for education, and reflect the greatest honour on their charity and generosity.

Let us now look to what government has done in regard to Catholic education. In the first place, our rulers in past times prohibited all Catholic schools under the severest penalties, determined, it would appear, to sink the people into the degrading depths of ignorance, or to compel them when acquiring knowledge to imbibe at the same time Protestant doctrines. Secondly, a Protestant university and Protestant schools were founded and richly endowed with the confiscated property of Catholic schools or monasteries, and all possible privileges and honours were lavishly conferred on them by the state, in order to give them weight and influence, and to render them more powerful in their assaults on the ancient creed of Ireland. Thirdly, these institutionsare still preserved, and possess immense property, nearly all derived from public grants. Besides other vast sources of income, Trinity College holds about two hundred thousand acres of land, and the several endowed schools are worth seventy or eighty thousand a year and own a great deal of landed property. Fourthly, it is to be observed that the management of these schools is altogether in Protestant hands, the teaching Protestant, and their atmosphere thoroughly impregnated with Protestantism. If any Catholic be admitted into those institutions, his faith is exposed to great danger, and unhappily it is too true that many who ventured to run the risk, perished therein, so that we find it recorded that several Catholics, when passing through the ordeal of Protestant education, lost their faith and became ministers and preachers of error. At present there are Protestant bishops and archdeacons, and other dignitaries, now enemies of the ancient faith, who commenced their career in Trinity College as very humble members of the Catholic Church. I say nothing of the many Catholics who, in consequence of the training received in Trinity College, never frequent any sacrament of their Church, and neglect all religious duties. The parents who expose their children to such dangers cannot be excused from a grievous breach of the trust committed to them by God. Can they be admitted to sacraments?

Keeping in mind the facts just stated, may we not ask, were not Protestants provided with everything they could desire for educational purposes? was it necessary to adopt other measures in their favour?

Now such being the case, had not we a right to expect that when new educational arrangements were to be made, the past sufferings of Catholics, the spoliation of their property, and their actual wants, should be taken into account? Was it to be supposed thattheirclaims should be overlooked in order to give further advantage to Protestantism? Reason and sound policy would have prohibited such suppositions. But "aliter superis visum". Instead of repairing past injustice and making some compensation for the confiscations of times gone by, the government, in all new measures for promoting education, seemed to forget the Catholics, and to think only of Protestant interests, just as if they were not abundantly provided for already. Thus, when the Queen's Colleges were projected, it was determined to establish them, and to endow them at the expense of the Catholics of the country, and on principles so hostile to Catholicity, that the Sovereign Pontiff and Irish bishops were obliged to condemn them as dangerous to faith and morals, whilst a Protestant statesman admitted that they were a gigantic scheme of godless education. Hence, no Catholic parent, though taxed for their support,unless he be ready to immolate his children to Baal, can send them to institutions thus anathematised. Have not Catholics great ground to complain upon this head?

The national system was also founded on bad principles, and to protect the consciences of Protestant children, even in schools where they never attend, Catholic instruction was prohibited in them during the common hours of class.

To illustrate the effects of this prohibition, the Archbishop refers to part of his own diocese—the county Dublin—in which there are 145 so-called National Schools, frequented by 36,826 Catholic children, without the intermixture of one single Protestant, and asks is it not most unjust and insulting to banish Catholic books, Catholic practices, the history of the Catholic Church, from such schools, and to treat them as if they were mixed or filled with Protestants? If the case were reversed—if there were so large a number of Protestant children in schools without any mixture of Catholics, would Protestants tolerate any regulation by which every mention of their religion would be banished from such schools? Why apply one rule to Catholics and another to Protestants? The Archbishop then adds:

"Let me repeat it: Catholic children in purely Catholic schools must pass the greater part of the day without any act or word of religion, lest they should offend Protestants who are present only in imagination. No crucifix, no image of the Blessed Mother of God, no sacred pictures, no religious emblems, though experience teaches that such objects make excellent impressions on the youthful mind, are tolerated in National schools, even when no Protestant frequents them. No Catholic book can be used, and even the works of such men as Bossuet, Massillon, Fenelon, the most eloquent writers of modern times, must be excluded because they were Catholics and inculcate Catholic doctrines. The only books used by Catholics in these schools have been compiled by the late rationalistic Archbishop of Dublin, by Dr. Carlisle, a Presbyterian, and other Protestants, and are tinged with an anti-Catholic spirit. It is to be added, that the history of our Irish saints and missionaries and of the ancient Church of Ireland and its doctrines, as well as the sad narrative of our sufferings and persecutions, is completely ignored. Were it necessary to throw still greater light on the spirit of the mixed system, we could show that the late Dr. Whately, one of its great patrons, declared in his last pastoral charge to the clergy of Kildare, that his object in introducing certain Scripture lessons into the schools was to shake the religious convictions of the people, and to dispel what he is pleased to call theirscriptural darkness. When things are thus conducted, have we not here again great reason to complain?"

The Archbishop also urges against the national system, its tendency to throw the education of this Catholic country into the hands of a Protestant government, whose past history provesthat it has been always hostile to Catholic interests. Model and training and agricultural schools, which are completely withdrawn from Catholic control, have this tendency. Are not inspectors and other managers of the system altogether government nominees? When books were to be selected, was not the same object promoted by deputing to compile them Protestant archbishops, Presbyterian ministers, and other Protestants, who banished from them everything Catholic and national, and made them breathe a spirit of English supremacy and anti-Catholic prejudice? May not the experience of past ages be appealed to to prove that education under such government control becomes hostile to true religion, tends to introduce a spirit of despotism, and to rob the subject of his liberty? This was the tendency of all government enactments on education in Ireland for centuries. The Archbishop observes:

"Robespierre and other French despots fully understood all this, when they proclaimed that all children were the property of the state, to be educated under its care, at the public expense. When the instruction of the rising generations and the direction of schools falls under the absolute control of the ruling powers of the Earth, that sort of wisdom which Saint Paul calls earthly, sensual, diabolical, soon begins to prevail; the wisdom from above falls away, and neither religion nor true Christian liberty can be safe".

Having examined in this way the present defects and shortcomings of education in Ireland, as far as it receives aid from the state, the Archbishop insisted that Catholics have a decided claim to a Catholic university, with every privilege and right conferred upon Protestant universities, to Catholic training and model schools, and to a system of education under which the faith and morals of Catholic children would be safe from all danger. In England[24]the schools for the people supported by government are denominational, and the Catholics, though only a fraction of the population, have all the advantages of a Catholic system of education. Why should Ireland be deprived of rights which are freely granted to every class of people not only in England and Scotland, but in all the British colonies? Are the Catholics of this country to be degraded and insulted on account of their religion? Would such a mode of acting be in conformity with the liberality of the present age?

Since the Archbishop made the foregoing observations, the Holy Father, our supreme guide in matters of religion, has published a series of propositions which he had condemned and reprobated on various occasions. We insert three of those propositions which bear upon education:

The forty-fifth is as follows:

Back to Index Next