The imagination of the Catholic is rationally excited by the representation of the great facts of religion, created in painting or statuary, and exhibited in ceremony; thus also Popery captivates the senses; but for what purpose? To excite the recollection of those facts which are recorded in the Bible; to place before us the example of the faithful servants of God; and, in doing so, we have the warrant of God's own precept and of His own example. We have it not only in the precepts which He gave to Moses respecting the ark and its decorations and appurtenances, but also in the model of the work which He exhibited upon the mountain; in the brazen serpent that He caused to be made and exposed, until it became an occasion of scandal, which rendered its removal necessary. I need not here multiply the proofs, by reference to the works of Solomon, of Nehemias, and of others. I need not refer to the raising up memorials of the passage of the Jordan, and of the sustenance of the people in the desert. All these captivated the senses, excited the imagination, wrought upon the memory, and thereby led to the practice of religion; and, as regards ceremony, surely we have the authority of God Himself, for the costly and ornamental and mystic attire of the priesthood, and of the attendants in the temple, for the symbolic rites of the Egyptian lamb, the feast of Tabernacles, the celebration of Pentecost, and several others. All these are calculated to captivate the senses, to excite the imagination, and thus influence man for the purposes of religion.

But the writer says that "Popery enslaves the mind to the forms of superstition." He does not vouchsafe either to inform us what he means by superstition, what are those forms, nor the mode of the enslavement. Thus his charge is so indistinct that it is not susceptible of distinct refutation. But I shall tell what we mean by superstition. It is the use of any rite or ceremony or other means, with the expectation of thereby obtaining any spiritual or supernatural effect, not attached thereto by the nature of what we so use or by the institution of God. When he

shall be able to show that any one of our authorized practices comes under this definition, then I shall admit that it is superstitious. Our authorized decorations and ceremonies are all calculated to impress the mind with the idea of God's presence, His perfection, the homage which we owe to Him, the benefits which He has conferred upon us, and the gratitude which we ought to exhibit in return. If this be superstition, we plead guilty. If this be religion, we claim to be religious. We first produce the definition; until this be admitted or denied, it would be ridiculous to go into special facts: but if the principle be agreed to, let our adversaries then go through the catalogue of our practices, and we shall abide the results of the application of that description to each. If abiding by the principles of religion be an enslavement of the mind, then are we enslaved. If it be the freedom of the children of God, then are Thus his third proposition is untrue.

we free.

His fourth is utterly destitute of even a semblance of truth. He charges that in our system "no truth is brought to bear upon the conscience or the heart." I am perfectly well aware of the influence of prejudice upon every mind. I can therefore suppose that this man actually thinks as he writes, and that he is under the erroneous impression that ours is a mere external exhibition of unmeaning and empty pomp. The fact is quite otherwise. In all our

ceremonial, there is not one particle of mere idle exhibition. It is true that, like the language of a nation, the symbolic rite which our Church thus uses, is unintelligible to a stranger, until he is taught. But they who conclude that it is useless or unmeaning show, may be well compared to the person who, upon arriving in a strange country, imagined its population were all idiots, and would fain persuade his companions that they used unmeaning and ridiculous babbling, instead of language; he was certain that they could not understand each other, because they were incomprehensible to him. One of his associates, however, who had travelled more, soon contrived to learn

some of their phrases, and understand their meaning, but could not make his obstinate friend recede from his first notions; though his associate showed himself now able to hold some intercourse with the natives, and declared that as his knowledge of their vocabulary became extended, he was delighted with the copiousness of their tongue and the rich significancy of their phraseology.

I have known several respectable converts to our faith, whose devotion was wonderfully increased and whose piety was greatly soothed by the rich, and sublime, and varied language of our ceremonial, as soon as they became acquainted with the principles of its explanation. When they spoke to some of their friends upon the subject, in the warm language of their new feelings, their expressions were attributed to unmeaning fanaticism; for the persons whom they addressed perceived no change: the language was as yet unintelligible to them. So I should suppose ours is to the editor of the Southern Telegraph. But such is not our own case. In it we behold, compendiously and strikingly displayed, the fall and the imperfection of man; the promise and the expectation of a Redeemer; the inefficiency of the ancient institutions for the purposes of our redemption; the types of better things; the arrival of the Saviour; His death; the promulgation of His Gospel; its effects; the institutions of the Saviour; the source of their efficacy, the ground of our hope; the lessons of morality which we should practice; the approach of death; the examples of the saints; the rewards bestowed upon them by a merciful God: and we are excited to labor as they did, that through the merits of the same Saviour, we may obtain similar glory. Is not this bringing truth to bear upon the conscience and the heart? would now ask whether the ignorance is chargeable upon the tolerant Protestant, who in this worship perceives little that differs from the religion of the Bible, or upon the bigoted, or if he prefers it, the intolerant Protestant, who calls it "an enslavement of the mind to forms of superstition, while no truth is brought to bear upon the conscience or the heart?"

It is a notorious fact that, even upon the uninstructed, the forms of our religion are calculated to make an impression which better fits the mind for the recollection of divine truth, the contemplation of heavenly things, and the reverential payment of homage to the eternal God. Upon this I may confidently appeal to any person who has had the opportunity of witnessing them duly performed, and who has attended with an unprejudiced disposition. How often has the subdued demeanor, the solemn attention, and occasionally the moistened eye of the stranger testified the feeling? I recollect two instances, in different stations of life, in which the same feeling was expressed in different styles. An English gentleman asked his footman, a Protestant, who accompanied him to a High Mass, in Brussels, what he thought of the ceremony. He answered: "Sir, I never saw God Almighty served like a gentleman before." One of the most talented and observant British diplomatists observed, after attending at a High Mass, celebrated by the Archbishop of Paris, in Notre Dame: "If I were King of France, I would permit no subject to elevate the Host: that sublime act should be performed only by myself." Did our Protestant fellow-citizens take more pains to understand what is thoughtlessly condemned their information and our mutual charity would be increased.

VII.

Before I proceed to examine the charges which the editor of the Southern Religious Telegraph has made upon the Roman Catholic body, and to exhibit their utter want of foundation, allow me to draw attention to a very unfortunate assertion which, in his essay, follows the little paragraph upon which I have commented. Complaining of the stupidity of liberal Protestants, or, as he calls them, the tolerant friends of Popery, he states: "Nor do they appear to know the fact, which is demonstrated by the whole history of Popery, that civil and religious liberty, as understood in this country, the last

half century, cannot co-exist with the laws of the papal communion. If the latter are administered, liberty must die; from the nature of things it is impossible for them to flourish together." Was ever writer more unfortunate? With notorious facts, palpably under his observation, it would seem that he not only cannot perceive the existence of what he announces, but he asserts the impossibility of what he proclaims to be a fact.

He surely will not deny that "civil and religious liberty, as understood in this country the last half century," has during that half century been in a flourishing and prosperous state. He anticipates evils it is true, but they have not as yet arrived, and as they might be only imaginary, he cannot assume the possibilities, dreaded by his imagination, to be really in existence. We have then hitherto preserved civil and religious liberty, and it has as yet been well upheld. This is an unquestionable fact. Now another fact equally unquestionable, is, that the Roman Catholic religion has, during the same period, made an astonishing progress in our republics; and there is not in all Christendom a country in which "the laws of the papal communion," as he calls the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, have less impediment cast in the way of their administration by the civil government than amongst us. And these laws are effectually carried into full execution. It is therefore evident that civil and religious liberty, such as he designates, and our religion, have actually co-existed and flourished together. Fifty years ago our republics were by no means secure: they were certainly not prosperous. To-day they are strong, powerful, efficient, formidable, happy, and respected. Fifty years ago, there was not a diocese, a bishop, a seminary, nor a convent of the Catholic Church in our Union. Now there is a perfect province, with its regular hierarchy, consisting of an archbishop, with seven suffragan bishops, and two coadjutors, besides two exempt dioceses and their bishops; giving an aggregate of twelve of the episcopal body, with their secular clergy; two universities and five or six