originating of a new system of theology or metaphysics to the preparation of stories for children, but this enthusiastic writer thinks his revered and admired friend might have done it equally well with the best and the greatest. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that such a man moved about in a quiet New Jersey village, for a quarter of a century, without being known all over the world. And we are quite sure that the retiring and unostentatious scholar never dreamed that his biographer would paint such an extravagant picture. We understand that the author of these volumes has been, for some years, a preacher in Virginia. If so, he has, perhaps, borrowed his style from his Southern brethren, whose extravagant imagery and magniloquent language have been always objects of wonder to the northern mind. We think, however, that the uncle would be better taken as a guide in the matter of rhetoric than his nephew; and the true estimate of the former's powers and greatness is doubtless somewhere between his own modest judgment of himself and the extremely adulatory one of his biographer. In a passage which presents a vivid description of Dr. Alexander's method of studying in his own room, we find the following pleasing picture: "His voice could be heard through his closed door, as in chirruping mood he sang his Arabic and Persian songs, blew tunes upon his ivory paperfolder, or murmured strange words in tones which might have deceived an inexperienced bee-hunter. Then he would pause, whirl the leaves of a lexicon, murmur again, whistle, soliloquize, cross and recross the floor, resume his seat, and so da capo. Sometimes, perhaps, when bending over Jarchi or J. D. Michaelis, a funny thought would strike him, and he would laugh aloud, quickly uttering the syllables, ha, ha, ha.'" The more we write of Dr. Alexander the more we like him; and we cannot but fancy his overflowingly joyous spirit refreshing itself with these volumes of his biography. In reading many of their sentences, descriptive of himself, he would, we are confident, pause, whirl over the leaves, murmur strange words in tones like a bee, whistle, soliloquize, cross and recross the floor, resume his seat, and so da capo, and da capo, and da capo, until, in the exuberance of his funny thoughts, he would close the

volumes with a loud utterance of those three expressive monosyllables.

NOTE.-After our Article had been written, and while it was in the printer's hands, we received the January number of the Princeton Review, containing a review of this biography. The authorship is indicated by the statement that the writer was a colleague of Dr. Alexander for twenty-five years, a statement which can be made only of the senior Professor of the Seminary at Princeton. He says, "This is one of the most skillfully executed biographies within our knowledge. ** The materials were abundant. They have been woven together with consummate skill. The style of the work also is excellent. It is clear, pure, and racy. There is no prolixity; no amplification, -all is rapid and vivacious."

ARTICLE V.-MORAL RESULTS OF THE ROMISH
SYSTEM.

Catholic World, September, 1869. Article entitled "The New Englander on the Moral Aspects of Romanism."

Catholic World, October, 1869. Article entitled "Morality of the City of Rome."

It is one of the "Moral Results of the Romish System "* that it produces, among its defenders, some of the most unscrupulous disputants in the history of polemics. Other the

* The Catholic World complains with bitter irony of the Rev. M. Hobart Seymour, one of the most dignified, as well as able, of controversial writers, for using this phrase, the Romish system, "as he elegantly, in accordance with the exigencies of modern controversy, styles the Catholic Church." It is an extremely difficult thing to suit the morbidly sensitive feelings of "our Roman Catholic brethren," in this matter of a name. If we defer to their own choice in the matter (as we should be willing enough to do, for courtesy, if they did not immediately take a trickish advantage of it), and call them Catholics, at once they snatch at the word and claim that we have conceded the main point at issue. If, on the other hand, we take any inoffensive and characteristic designation of their party and institution, we are sure to be met with violent or scornful reclamations, or with a tone of serene, uncomplaining, injured innocence and meekness under outrage, which distresses us out of measure. We are seeking for light, and studying the things that make for peace. Will the Catholic World, or some other in authority, explain to us in what respect papist is any more an opprobrious term than episcopalian, presbyterian, or congregationalist, as describing the adherent of a particular system of church-government; or wherein the name popery is any worse than episcopacy or presbyterianism, except in so far as the thing it stands for is worse; or how it should be an affront to call a man a Romanist, and not an affront to call one an Anglican or Gallican; or why it should be any more offensive to speak of “the Romish system,” than of the Greek, or the Oxford, or the Genevan system? What can be the matter with a cause, every harmless descriptive title of which is repudiated as an insult by its adherents? It is an accepted law of language that the names of things intrinsically offensive tend to become offensive themselves, and have to be changed from time to time for new euphemisms. But this would hardly be cited by the Catholic World, in justification of its anger at the expression, "Popery," or Romish system."

"the

As for ourselves, in our amiable desire to humor even the unreasonable whims of an opponent, we generally write out the compound Roman Catholic" in

ological debaters argue for the truth; and although the attitude of controversy is not favorable to candid hearing, still it is not impossible for the partisan to learn from his antagonist, and be convinced of a thing when it is proved. But the champion of Rome defends, not a proposition, but a corporation; and he is tempted to all the arts by which a corporation-counsel may hope to make a good case for his client. The Church must be infallible (if only we could tell where the infallibility is vested), for if it is not infallible, where are we all? Therefore, the Church is to be defended against all gainsayers. Or, to sum it up in the terse expression of the Catholic World for the current month, "his conscience is his church."*

The working out of this identical principle into similar results is visible in the directly opposite fanaticism which makes a religion of denouncing and abusing this same institution as the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition. The history of pious frauds in Christendom is the history, mainly, of two sects, one holding that a certain corporation is to be vindicated and aggrandized at all hazards, the other, that it is to be vilified at all hazards. Of course, the advantage of time, skill, and experience in the business, is all on the side of Rome. Anti-popery has showed a very pretty talent in that direction, though it can never hope to equal such masterpieces of fraud as (for instance) the Decretals of Isidore and the Donation of Constantine But "the spirit that worketh" in the one and in the other is the same. The spirit that breathes through the chaste pages of Maria Monk and the "Wonderful Adventures of a French Lady," is the genuine spirit of Roman Catholic controversy.

There is a quiet gentleman in Brooklyn who sometimes writes for the New Englander, Mr. L. W. Bacon, whose experience of the dealings of Roman Catholic antagonists in discussion illustrates their unpleasant modes of controversy. Some two years ago he adventured a civil pamphlet in answer to Father Hecker's eight questions, "Is it Honest?" Where

full. But it is too much to expect this of human nature in general. We cannot sympathize with the indignation that denounces Mr. Seymour for saying "Romish System."

* Catholic World, January, 1870, p. 547.

upon the Catholic World came down upon him with vast scorn and "aspersion of his parts of speech," finding in him nothing to approve or praise. Next he took to task, in an Article in Putnam's Magazine, certain petty impostures published in the anti-popery interest, which he liked as little as he did the brazen sophistries of Father Hecker. Whereupon the Catholic World fell (metaphorically) upon his neck and embraced him as a man exceptionally generous and noble; but regretted that he should have allowed himself to commend Mr. Hobart Seymour, whose statistical exhibit of "the moral results of the Romish system" was a most damaging argument against that system. Instead, however, of yielding to these soft solicitations, Mr. Bacon actually, in the July number of the New Englander, went so far as to vindicate Mr. Seymour's statistics, and even to give additional and more recent tables, which proved that what had been true in 1854 was true in 1869; and that, by every accessible measurement, the morality of Roman Catholic countries was worse than that of Protestant countries. Instantly Mr. Bacon became, in the eyes of the Catholic World, a bad man-a very bad man. Gall and wormwood are nothing to the bitterness with which it apostrophizes him:

"Your persistence in repeating calumnious statements, and spreading them out as you do among readers who will not see the refutation, will give you and your friend, Mr. M. Hobart Seymour, an unenviable notoriety among the worst calumniators of the Catholic religion who have as yet appeared. You have repeated some time ago, that most infamous calumny of the Tax-book of the Roman Chancery, so amply refuted by Bishop England; but although it has been called to your notice, you have never had the grace to apologize.* The old maxim

* Twice within the year the Catholic World has made this allegation against Mr. Bacon, with what justice the following facts will show: In the very next edition of his pamphlet, after the Catholic World had challenged the genuineness of the document alluded to, he appended a note giving his antagonist the full benefit of his contradiction, and waiving the use of the disputed document as unimportant to his urgument; and this note has stood in all subsequent editions. See "Fair answers to Fair Questions," p. 41, note. We do not suppose that the Catholic World has gone on, month after month, reiterating this accusation, knowing it to be unjust. We presume that it has only repeated it not knowing whether it was just or not, and not having so much as looked to see.

But since the Catholic World will insist on hearing further concerning this "infamous calumny," we submit the following from a recent Roman Catholic author, who seems to know quite as much about the matter as Bishop England:

"Since 1512, a fresh source of information had been added, in the shape of an