the United States, daily becoming larger, which may be classed among the poor, are to be brought and kept under the influence of Christianity, it will only be through the Catholic Church. This, and the remark holds good both as to the virtuous poor and to the vicious, is so generally admitted that we need not enlarge upon it. As regards the antagonisms in society, daily becoming deeper and more pronounced, and felt by all who study "the signs of the times," to constitute a real peril to the peace of society and the stability of our political institutions, no other power than that of the Catholic religion can hold these antagonisms in check, can restrain the passions to which they give rise, and infuse that goodwill by which alone those, who are now regarding each other with feelings of mutual distrust, if not with fear and hate, can be prevented from coming into open collision.

These antagonisms existed in pagan Rome, deep and bitter. They almost disappeared during the Middle Ages under the influence of Catholicity. There were differences then as regards rank, wealth, social position, and social influence. Society was divided into classes; and the differences and distinctions between them were then more marked than they now are, in any country. Christianity did not originate those differences and distinctions, though she did recognize them, and did not attempt in any violent way to destroy them. But Christianity did, during the Middle Ages, not only soften down those differences, and eventually destroy some of them, but, what is still more to the point, she so authoritatively and effectively inculcated into the minds of all the law of Christian charity, that the feelings of bitterness and hatred which those distinctions would have otherwise engendered, were replaced by feelings of mutual regard and consideration. The haughtiness and contempt which, outside the Church, the powerful felt and manifested towards the weak, had to give way when noble and the king were taught that the lowest of his vassals and the meanest of his slaves were their brothers in Christ, who might, by patient endurance of the rigors of their lot, attain higher seats and more glorious crowns in the kingdom of Christ than they; and when they had practical evidence of this in the Church's frequently investing some one from the lowest ranks of society with the power of a priest or the dignity of a bishop, and requiring the noble of the earth to do him reverence.

In like manner she taught the poor slave patience and submission, under the conviction that whatever might be the toil that wore out his body, however mean his employment in the eyes of men, his thraldom and humiliation touched not his soul, and that at the Altar of His God, and in the sacraments of the Church, he was free and equal to the mightiest who wore a crown and sat upon

VOL. IV.-II

a throne; and that for every menial service he performed, for all the toil and humiliation he endured under earthly masters, if performed and endured for the sake of Christ who died for him, yet still lived and personally communed with him when he received Him at the Altar, he, the poor bond slave, would be recompensed a hundred fold by an inheritance of ineffable peace and never-fading glory in the kingdom of Heaven.

Thus rich and poor, mighty and weak, highborn and low, were brought together in the Church, not as enemies, but as more than friends, as brothers in Christ.

And, though in those ages of transition-wild and stormy as such ages (and with such material as the Church had to deal with) necessarily must be,-this law of Christian charity was not always observed in practice; though the wild, fierce feelings and traditions of previous barbarism occasionally broke through the restraints imposed upon them, and though the law of Christian charity was thus violated, yet the existence and the obligations of the law were acknowledged, and the violations became fewer and less flagrant as the influence of the Church increased.

Protestantism when it acquired power, checked the progress of the law of universal charity. In the peoples over whom it has obtained sway questions respecting the mutual rights and interests of rich and poor, employer and employee have been taken out of the scope of religion and given over to the human sciences, so called, of political economy and social philosophy. The countless charitable foundations through which the Church alienated suffering and supplied destitution were destroyed; the influences by which she repressed the antagonism of different classes in society were resisted and opposed; and now those antagonisms are again manifesting themselves, as they did in ancient heathen Rome, threatening to break out with like violence and with like disastrous effects; or if they are repressed, are repressed only by superior force, treading down the poor into the dust, but leaving in their hearts deep feelings of bitter hate and a fierce desire for vengeance, utterly incompatible with that peace which Christ came to give.

What the Catholic Church has done in the past, she can do in the present and future; she is doing it in the face of all the efforts to embarrass and thwart her 'action. Even those who hate and fear her, feel this. She is, and she is recognized as, the only power that can hold together in bonds of amity and Christian love the otherwise hostile classes of society.

5. The last point we referred to in our discussion of Protestantism was reverence for the majesty and divine authority of law. We showed that in its fundamental principle Protestantism denies his, and that the Protestant principle of private judgment when car

ried out logically to its legitimate consequences destroys in the individual the sense of moral obligation to obey law.

To this can clearly be traced the lawlessness of our age, and this is now the special peril that hangs over society. The Catholic Church squarely meets it with uncompromising opposition. It denounces as a doctrine of the devil, the idea that law is nothing more than the expression of the arbitrary wishes and purposes of individuals. It teaches that it has its origin in the will of God, that from Him it derives its authority, its sanctions, its right to enforce its enactments. Thus it strikes at the very root of the evil which now threatens the peace of society and in fact imperils its very existence.

We cannot enlarge upon this, but the truth that this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and that it is powerfully effective in preserving social order and peace, is acknowledged both by those who believe in and revere the teaching of the Church, and by those who disbelieve and oppose it.

In Europe the monarchs and kings who hate and fear the Church, and who would, if they could, make her their bondslave to do their behests, are well aware of the conservative influence of the Church and avail themselves of it for their protection, even whilst they are plotting and warring against her. She is the only barrier against the destructive spirit of radical revolution which aims at sweeping away not only dynasties and thrones, but every political institution which stands between civil society and the mere arbitrary will and passions of individuals; which, under the pretext of popularizing the institutions of society, would destroy them and enthrone in their place, under the name of a republic, an absolutism, of which, as to character and consequences, the "Reign of Terror" in France is a historical exemplification.

We have entirely failed in our purpose, if we have not clearly shown, imperfect as is our statement of the influence exerted by the Catholic religion as respects the five points stated, that to it the people of the United States must look for the correcting, purifying, preserving, and conservative power which alone can arrest the decadence in morals now plainly going on amongst them, and which alone can infuse and keep alive those principles of integrity, of purity, of reverence for law and authority, of Christian charity, without which no nation can become or can continue, truly great and noble. The increased influence of the Catholic religion instead of being (as some pretend) a source of apprehension, therefore, as regards our future prosperity, should be looked upon as affording strong ground for hope that we will not fail in the grand and glorious mission which, as a people, we have, at least until recently, firmly believed we were destined to fulfil.

CORRESPONDENCE.

MISSIONARY RECTORS.

[It gives us pleasure to lay before our readers the following letter from Rev. F. Porphyrius. He need make no apology for its form. Any communication from his pen, whether in epistolary or other form, will always find a place in our pages. The translation he adopts of the "Instruction," which has caused such a stir as its transatlantic framers could never have anticipated, is timely. It is, besides, sufficiently accurate; and his comments on the same are such that no one, we apprehend, can justly find fault with them.-EDs. A. C. Q. R.]

MESSRS. EDITORS: You will forgive me, I trust, for addressing you in what is, perhaps, an unusual way. I can only plead in excuse, though you may refuse to admit the plea, that I am not very conversant with the ways of the world, knowing but little of its arbitrary laws and fashions, and not caring much how soon even that little may fade out of my memory. Not that I am an enemy of true politeness, or prefer rudeness to courtesy. On the contrary, I have the highest respect and even veneration for true politeness, which I hold to be the legitimate outcome of the spirit of Christianity, born of the Gospel, and which can have no real existence, no life, apart from Christian charity. Hence, I would not willingly offend. If, therefore, I am now violating the etiquette of journalism, for this, too, I suppose, has its laws and fashions, you may at once punish the offence by consigning my letter to the flames.

I am somewhat of a solitary, partly from choice and partly from circumstances, and live a good deal of my life in what the world loves to call a lonely cell. Never was epithet more devoid of rhyme and reason. My cell is not lonely, but haunted by a thousand pleasing memories, and blessed by the presence of many great and good men who have gone the way of all flesh, but yet live in their immortal works. In them I find the best of company, and from their conversation derive far more pleasure and profit than I could ever hope for in the idle gossip of every-day visitors. With the outside world I do not mingle much; never, indeed, unless when summoned by the voice of authority, or persuaded by the entreaties of my clerical friends to lend them what help I can in their ministerial duties.

As neither my inclination nor my many duties allow me time to read the papers, what I know of daily events in Church and State is gathered from those clerical friends who kindly invite me now and then to share their religious labors. Of late, the most exciting topic of discussion amongst them was the recently issued "Instructio" of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, regarding Missionary Rectors and the new mode of trial which must precede their deposition, etc. I was not a little puzzled in hearing the widely varying constructions put upon

the document by different clergymen. Some-and they were very fewmodestly confessed that they did not exactly understand the whole bearing and purpose of the "Instruction," but that the course of time and the voice of authority would bring out practically its true interpretation. Others looked on it with complete indifference, content with respecting it as the mandate of ecclesiastical authority. Some were dissatisfied and disposed to quarrel with it; they saw in it little or no good, for in their opinion it left things pretty much in statu quo. Others, on the contrary, hailed it with wild rejoicing as the greatest boon ever conferred by the Holy See on the American Church, the Magna Charta of emancipation from clerical serfdom of a century, the long-lost but now recovered palladium of ecclesiastical liberty.

Struck with wonder at this diversity of views, I asked for a sight of the document, and my wonder increased a hundred fold when I read the Instruction, and saw how clearly and unmistakably one was its meaning, which had been subjected to so many different interpretations. I told them as much, and even made bold to add (though they took it in good part) that they reminded me salva reverentia of heretics who read God's law and revelation, not to learn its true sense, but to find in it their own conceits. "In the same way," said I, "you read the Roman rescript and discover in it, not what it contains, but what is uppermost in your heart and desires. Why do you not get a literal, accurate translation of the document? It will be a great help towards discovering its true meaning." "Oh! we have studied it in a translation," quoth one of the Magna Charta partisans. "And, pray, who made the translation?" I ventured to ask. "The editor of the St. Louis Western Watchman," he replied with an air of triumphant defiance. I recognized at once the vulgar American prejudice, which, professing to scout all authority, human and divine, bows down blindly to the newspaper as its oracle, and was about to express myself to that effect. But luckily I held my peace; for, as I afterwards learned, there was among my hearers a gentleman of the press. And even in my uneventful life I have had occasion to find out that the wrath of newspaper-men, book-makers, et id genus omne, is no less implacable than that of the " 'godlike Achilles.” So I merely inquired for a copy of the translation, which when handed to me I read over carefully, comparing it meanwhile with the original Latin. When I had done reading, my opinion was asked. Compelled thus to speak the truth, I candidly stated that the translation did not seem to me quite accurate in some places; but (this I added to propitiate all sides) since the document had been interpreted in various ways, it was to be expected that it should be differently translated by different hands, translation being only a form of interpretation. They then asked me to translate it. To this I agreed on one condition, namely, that when I had written it out, I should send it to the editors of the REVIEW, and ask their opinion of its fidelity. To this they all assented, and, what is more, pledged themselves to abide by the editors' decision.