Pompilins, have not forgotten what a sensation was produced by the accession of Pius IX. to the Roman pontificate, and what a movement followed. It was understood that the new Pope was not only kind in his feelings and gentle in his manners, but liberal in his views of government. His first official acts were testimonies of his clemency and good-nature, con. ciliating the favor of his subjects, and were followed by measures that testified his desire to reform abuses both in his secular government and in the government of the Church. A liberal Pope,-a reforming Pope,- the manifest fact startled all Europe ; and Pius IX. was for a time the most popular man in Italy, nay in Christendom. France, and especially Paris, shared as much as Italy itself in the strange excitement; for among the French clergy there had long been a party of thinkers dissatisfied with the conflict between Rome and the nineteenth century. Lamennais had indeed made shipwreck of his faith ; but his associates, Montalembert, Lacordaire, and others like them, had never given up entirely their devout endeavor to make Christianity, as represented by the Roman Catholic Church, efficient in the political and social regeneration of their country. The measures of the new Pope were quite accordant with the ideas of these men, and were accepted as evidence that a new era was at hand. Gioberti-perhaps the greatest Italian thinker of the present century-who having been chaplain to the King of Sardinia, and Professor of Theology at Turin, had been banished from his native country for the liberality of his views on political themes, but in his exile and poverty at Brussels had made himself famous thronghont Europe as a theologian, a philosopher, and a patriot-hastened to Paris that he might be in a position to observe and promote the new order of things which was so evidently beginning in Italy.

It was in that year, 1846, that Charles Loyson, born of a family which had risen in the preceding generation to some literary distinction, and carefully educated in liberal studies by his father, who was the head of an academy in the little city of Pan, came to Paris and entered the Seminary of St. Sulpice, to prepare himself for the priesthood. He was at that time in his twentieth year-just at the age when great

events, like those which were taking place in Italy, make the deepest impression on a susceptible mind. He had lived till then at home, quite secluded from the outside world, his father's honse being, as he describes it, a sort of “family convent." An uncle of his, whose name he bears, and who died fifty years ago, had been the associate and dear friend and the compeer in genius of such men as Guizot, Cousin, and Royer-Collard, in their yonth, and had left in his writings, as well as in the memory of his life, a testimony for liberty against absolutism and for Christian order and civilization against the reveries of atheistic democracy. From the beginning of his studies in the seminary, the young candidate for the priesthood could not but be in sympathy with those devont and generous souls who, though trained to believe that the Roman Catholic communion is the veritable and only Church of Christ, believe aiso that, where the spirit of Christ is, there is liberty; that, therefore, the Church of Christ ought to be, everywhere and always, the antagonist rather than the ally of oppression ; and that as Christ is the light of the world, so his Church ought to be the leader of the world's progress.

After five years in the seminary at Paris, Charles Loyson was admitted to the priesthood, and became a member of that society of priests which takes its name from the parish of St. Sulpice, and which exists for the education of the secular clergy in France. He was immediately employed as a professor of theology, first for three years in the Sulpitian Seminary at Avig. non, then for two years in that at Nantes; and after that he was for one year vicar of the seminary in which he himself had been trained. These eleven years having been completed, he withdrew from his connection with the society and returned for one year to his old home. “His thonght was, in the repose of home, to ripen, by a few months of reflection, the fruits of so many years of unintermitted and laborious study." In 1859, he passed from the ranks of the “secular” into those of the "regular" clergy, and became Brother Hyacinthe, a monk of the order of Barefooted Carmelites. The name of that order intimates the severity of its ascetic rules, and distinguishes it from the Carmelites of "the milder observance, who, in addition to other carnal indulgences, are permitted to wear shoes and stockings instead of being limited to sandals.

All this time the priest and professor, Charles Loyson, seems not to have been a preacher nor to have lifted up his voice in any public assembly. But the Carmelite order, thongh characteristically contemplative, is also active, and some of its monks have been eminent preachers. In 1861, Brother Hyacinthe, with the shaved head, the sandaled feet, and the white woolen robe of a Carmelite monk, began his career as a preacher, being then thirty-four years of age. His first preaching was at Lyons; and immediately he began to be famous. The next year, and the year after that, he gave courses of sermons in other provincial cities; and it was not till 1864 that he inade his appearance as a preaching friar in Paris. There his first sermons were in the famous and fashionable Church of La Madeleine; and such was their effect that the Archbishop (Darboy) made haste to place him in the pulpit of the metropolitan cathedral, for a work to which no man since Lacordaire (at that time the last illustrious name in the roll of great French preachers) had been found competent. He was called to renew the “ Advent Conferences of Notre Dame”-the yearly conrse not of sermons in form, but of religions discourses without texts prefixed, which Lacordaire in his time had made so effective, but which, after his retirement from the pulpit, had ceased to be effective, and had even been discontinued. Accepting that call, he gave his first series of conferences in the Advent season of 1864, and continued to perform the service at the same season through the four succeeding years.

A glance at the distinct yet logically related subjects of those ftve courses (each consisting of six lectures) is enough to show that the preacher began his work with a definite conception of what is the disease of France and the age. In the first course, he asserted and vindicated against the atheism, conscious or unconscious, gross or refined, which infects so much of modern thonght, that foundation truth of all knowledge, “ a Personal God." For the next year his theme was, “ Religion the basis of morality.” Advancing from these “first principles,” he exhibited, in the lectures of 1866, “ the relations of Christianity to Domestic Society or the Family ;' in those of 1867, “the relations of Christianity to Civil So

ciety or the State ;” and in those of 1868, “the relations of Christianity to Religions Society or the Church.” It is easy to understand that, handling such subjects as these, and handling them in a way to command the attention not of believers only, but of unbelievers; not of the devout only, but of the inquiring and speculative; not of habitual church-goers only, but of all Paris—speaking, too, out of a heart in full sympathy with the yearning of the age for freedom, ard from the position which he had learned to take when Pius IX. was trying to be a reformer and a patriot-it was a matter of course that he had adversaries among the clergy of his own communion. Everybody knows that, whatever may be true in the United States, there are in Europe monks, priests, bishops, and cardinals, who believe devoutly that all things ought to have continued as they were before the French revolution. Those old names, Gallican and Ultramontane, are not the names to represent the two chief parties or opposing tendencies which divide the Roman Catholics of France to-day. The old Gallicanism would have made the national Church of France, like that of England, a dependency of the crown, and not much more; while the old Ultramontanism was the only forin in which a Roman Catholic could assert the divine right of the Church to adıninister the law of Christ, or conld conceive of the Church as independent of the secular power. But to-day the imminent questions among Roman Catholics, in France and everywhere else, are of another sort. There is, indeed, a Gallican remnant (p. 170); but Lacordaire, Montalembert, and Lamennais himself were Ultramontanes, when they claimed for the Church and the Pope the leadership in the great movement for liberty against absolute power in the government of nations. So intense was the Ultramontanism of Lacordaire and Lamennais that the one retracted his published opinions at the mandate of the Pope, and the other could not cease to be an Ultramontane without ceasing to be a Christian. The comprehensive question, to-day, is not how to adjust the relations between the Pope and the secular government, but how to adjust the relations between the Church and the nineteenth century; and on that question there are, if not two parties definitely formed, two opposite modes of

thinking. On the question of religions liberty—on the question of popular education in common schools-on the question whether the Church and the State ought to be everywhere separate and mutnally independent-on many such qnestions earnest Roman Catholics hold opposite opinions. Some men who are truly Christian Catholics-liberal in their recognition of human rights, and in their opposition to those methods of government which Christendomn has outgrown-liberal, too, in their readiness to recognize Christian character, " the fruit of the Spirit,” whenever they find it—are trying to be, at the same time, Roman Catholics. On the other hand, there are those who hold with all their hearts the old opinions, who would burn John Huss again to day if they had him in their power, who would arraign Galileo again before the inquisition, and would bring back the Bourbons into every country from which they have been expelled. These conservatives were from the first the adversaries of Father Hyacinthe.

Against the machinations of those adversaries, he was protected by the fidelity and liberality of his great patron, the Archbishop of Paris, and partly, we may presume, by the esprit de corps of the Carmelite Order. His letter of September 20, to the General of the Order (whose headquarters are of course at Rome) becomes completely intelligible only when we recollect the state of parties in the Roman Catholic communion at Paris. He begins by saying to his very Reverend Father: “During the five years of my ministry at Notre Dame, Paris, not withstanding the open attacks and secret inisrepresentations of which I have been the object, your confidence and esteem have never for a moment failed me."

At this point, then, we propose to inquire more exaetly, what is it in this great preacher which made him the object of open attack and secret misrepresentation? The discourses in the volume before ns will enable intelligent readers to judge for themselves concerning the character of his preaching and the tendency of his influence in the Church. What is the substance and drift of his discourses ? Does he preach anything which Rome has anathematized? Does he, at any point, contradict the formulas of his own Church, or deviate from them? Is he a Rationalist, like Renan, who once stood at the threshold

[ocr errors]
« ͹˹Թõ