CHAPTER VIII.

INFLUENCE OF THE REFORMATION ON MORALS.

"This world is fallen on an easier way;

This age knows better than to fast and pray.”—Dryden.

Two methods of investigation-Connexion of doctrines and morals— Salutary influence of Catholic doctrines-Of confession-Objections answered-Of celibacy-Its manifold advantages-Utility of the doctrines of satisfaction and indulgences-Of fasting-Of prayers for the dead-Of communion of saints-Sanctity of marriage-Divorces -Influence of Protestant doctrines-Shocking disorders-Bigamy and polygamy-Mohammedanism-Practical results-Testimonies of Luther, Bucer, Calvin and Melancthon-and of Erasmus-Character of Erasmus-John Reuchlin-Present state of morals in Protestant countries.

We have seen what was the influence of the reformation on the doctrines of Christianity. We will now briefly examine its influence on morals. Was this beneficial, or was it injurious? There are two ways to decide this question: the one by reasoning a priori on the nature and tendency of the respective doctrines of Catholicism and of Protestantism; the other, which will greatly confirm the conclusions of the former, by facts showing what was the relative practical influence of both systems. We will employ both these methods of investigation.

I. Doctrines have a powerful influence on morals. The former enlighten the understanding, the latter guide and direct the movements of the heart and will. These are of themselves mere blind impulses, until light is reflected on them from the understanding. A sound faith then, illumining the intellect, is an essential pre-requisite to sound

morals, in the individual, as well as in society. True, we are able, by the exercise of our free will, to shut our eyes to the light, and to continue acting perversely; but this does not disprove the powerful influence, which the understanding enlightened by faith, has over our moral conduct.

What was the necessary moral influence of those doctrines of the Catholic church, which the reformation rejected; and what that of those new ones which it substituted in their place? We speak only, of course, of the distinctive doctrines of both communions; not of the common ground which they occupy. The reformation retained many of the great principles of Christianity, which, according to the testimony of Luther himself, referred to above, it had borrowed from the Catholic church. Among the doctrines, or important points of discipline which the reformation repudiated, the principal were: confession; the celibacy of the clergy; the doctrine of satisfaction, implied in fasting, purgatory, prayers for the dead, and indulgences; the honor and invocation of saints; and the indissoluble sanctity of marriage; to say nothing of the real presence, which the greater portion of Protestants also rejected. We will say a few words on the moral influence of each of these doctrines. We may say of them all in general, that they had a restraining and elevating effect; that many of them were painful to human nature; and opposed a strong barrier to the passions.

Even Voltaire admitted the salutary moral influence of confession. He says: "The enemies of the Catholic church, who opposed an institution so salutary, seem to have taken away from men the greatest possible check to secret offences."* Another infidel, and mortal enemy of Rome-Marmontel-says: "How salutary a preservative for the morals of youth, is the practice and obligation of

* "Annales de l'Empire, quoted by Robelot, "Influence," &c. p. 24, note.

going to confession every month? The shame attending this humble avowal of the most hidden sins, prevents perhaps the commission of more of them, than all other motives the most holy taken together."* Nothing but stern truth could have drawn such avowals from such men.

How many crimes, in fact, has not the practice of confession prevented or corrected! How much implacable hatred has it not appeased! How much restitution of illgotten goods, and how much reparation of injured character, has it not brought about! How often has it not preserved giddy youth from confirmed habits of secret and degrading vice! How much consolation has it not poured into bosoms torn by anguish, or weighed down by sorrow! What amount of good and salutary advice has it not imparted! How often has it not prevented the sinner from being driven to the very verge of despair! In a word, how much has it not contributed to the preservation of morals in every portion of society, which felt its influence!

Tell us not, that confession may be abused by corrupt men-that it has been often made an instrument of unholy ambition in the hands of the priesthood-and that it facilitates the commission of crime, by its offer of pardon. These objections are all based on unfounded suspicion, or gross misapprehension of the nature of confession. At least the evils complained of are greatly exaggerated, and are not to be put in comparison with the incalculable amount of good, which this institution is calculated to effect, and which it has really done. What good thing is there, which has not been abused? Has not the Bible itself, abused by wicked men, been a source of incalculable mischief? Has not the church guarded against abuses in the confessional, by the sternest enactments? One of these takes from the wicked priest all power of absolving an accomplice in crime; and another requires the peni

* (6 Mémoires," tom. i, liv. i. Apud Robelct, ibid.

tent to denounce the unfaithful minister to the proper authorities.*

And then, how sacred and inviolable has not the seal of confession ever been? History does not record one single instance of its violation, among hundreds of thousands of priests, in the long lapse of ages!t How can the priest avail himself of the knowledge obtained through confession, in order to exercise political or any other undue influence, when he is bound by the most sacred obligation, sanctioned by the most severe penalties, to make no use whatever of the knowledge thus acquired? Why reason from mere suppositions and mere possibilities, against the strongest evidences, and the most stubborn facts of history?

As to the other objection-that confession encourages the commission of sin-it is as puerile as it is hackneyed. Absurdity is stamped on its very face. What? is it easier then to commit a sin which you know you have to confess to a fellow man, than it would be to commit the same sin, without feeling any such obligation? We would not be guilty of an offence, forsooth, which we believed we could expiate by a mere act of internal repentance, joined with confession to God; and yet we would be encouraged to commit this same offence, if we felt that, in addition to all this, we would be obliged to confess it to a priest! The objection is predicated on a strange ignorance of human nature. The Catholic church requires, for the remission of sin, all that Protestants demand, and, over and above all this, it requires as essential conditions to pardon, many painful things-confession, restitution, works of peniten

See the two bulls of Benedict XIV on this subject. They begin, Sacramentum and Apostolici. Another enactment to the same effect was made by pope Gregory XV, in the year 1622. See Liguori"Homo Apostolicus" Tract. XVI, numo. 95, seqq. and numo. 165, seqq. De complice et sollicit.

† See the testimony of Marmontel to this effect. Mémoires, tom. iv.

tial satisfaction-which Protestants do not require. Which system encourages the commission of sin most?

The people never could be induced to confess their sins to a married clergy. From the testimony of Burkard, bishop of Worms, it appears that the Catholic population of that city refused to go to confession to those priests, who, stimulated by the principles of the reformation then just commencing, had broken their vows of celibacy by taking wives. Confession and celibacy fell together. A married clergy never can command the respect, which has ever been paid to those who are unmarried. This is generally admitted by Protestants, and even is made a matter of censure against the Catholic clergy, who are accused of having too much influence over their flocks! The true secret of this influence lies in the greater abstraction from the world-in the greater freedom from worldly solicitude -in the more spiritual character of an unmarried clergy. Does not St. Paul allege these very motives, in the strong appeal he makes in favor of celibacy, in his first epistle to the Corinthians P* Does he not advise the embracing of this state both by word and example? Can the Catholic church be blamed for having adopted his principles, and acted on his advice?

Who can recount the immense advantages of priestly celibacy to society? Who can tell of all the splendid churches it has erected; of the hospitals for the sick and the afflicted, it has reared; of the colleges it has built; of the ignorant it has instructed; of the noble examples of heroic charity it has given to the world; and of the Pagan nations it has converted to Christianity? Catholic Europe is full of noble monuments to religion, to literature and to charity, which an unmarried priesthood has built up.

To advert briefly to the last consideration named above; can a married clergy, other things being equal, cope with one that is unmarried, in missionary labors among heathen

* Chap. vii. Read the whole chapter.