lic dogma requires us to assert at least, the indirect power contended for by Bellarmine and Suarez, unless we would forego our logic."—(Br. Rev. Jan. '54, p. 88.)

"All the arguments that can be adduced amount to nothing, for, if anything is certain, it is that Christ has instituted his Church to govern all men and nations according to his law, which she is alone competent to interpret and apply. We only ask our readers to bear in mind, that the Church is not herself the civil authority, and that, though she possesses the temporal authority in radice, she ordinarily governs the temporal sovereign. She bears by divine right both swords, but she exercises the temporal sword by the hand of the prince or magistrate. The temporal sovereign holds it subject to her order, to be exercised in her service, under her direction. This is the normal order, and it is only an unmanly fear of offending, or an undue desire to please, secular governments, that has ever led any intelligent Christian to concede the contrary. That the Church has always been able to exercise her rightful supremacy, or that secular governments have in general shown themselves to be her obedient children we are far from pretending; but we owe it to her and to them to assert her rights and their duties, and perhaps in doing so we may aid in preparing a better future, and do something to enable her to check the reign of political atheism, and to save society, now threatened at once by both despotism and anarchy from utter dissolution."(Br. Rev. Jan. '53, p. 60.)

It will be seen that so far from being "pure invention," the citations quoted by Mr. Clark are not only fair as to the spirit of them, but not even up to the full force of the paragraph quoted from. But what will our readers say to the following paragraph even from this April No. '55?

"However this may be, the Protestant has the right to hold us to the defence of the Papacy as defended by Bellarmine, because a Catholic, may hold Bellarmine's doctrine without suspicion of heterodoxy, and no Catholic has the right to insist that Protestants shall take Bossuet's, or even Fenelon's, as the only approved Catholic doctrine. All a Catholic can say to a Protestant is, a man may be a Catholic without holding that the authority exercised by Popes and Councils over temporal sovereigns in the Middle Ages was an authority inherent in the Papacy, but he cannot tell him, that to be a Catholic one must so hold. So, whether we are Gallicans or Ultramontanists, Protestants have the right, if they choose, to hold us to the defence of the Papacy on Ultramontane principles, and we must be prepared always so to defend it, till we are able to declare by authority that those principles are heterodox. "-(Br. Rev. April '55, p. 257.)

One thing has struck us as very remarkable in all these denials of authorities cited; viz, that those who deny, are never ready to produce the document quoted from and show that the passage is not there, or if there, that it is falsely quoted. We have heard, indirectly, of some of the political Journals in the West, declaring on the authority of Papal dignitaries, that even our own full citations in the Critic, were garbled or "bogus" documents! Now it is to be presumed, that such Papal dignitaries have ready access to the Roman Catholic Journals. Could they not favor the Editors whom they thus authorize to pronounce such citations forgeries, or garbled, with the documents from which the citations profess to come? We cite page and dates carefully, they can easily expose us.

One other paragraph in this April Number of Dr. Brownson's has struck us as rather singular, when compared wit. some of his former utterances. We refer to the following triumphant query on page 269, in the Review of Dr. Beecher :

"If they can, by appeals to reason, history, and Scripture, convince the American people that Catholicity is from God, who has the right to complain? Reason, history, and Scripture are open to you to use against them, if you choose. They are

willing to meet you on fair and equal terms before the American public, and if you are unwilling to meet them on the same terms, or, so meeting them, are worsted, is this their fault?"-(Br. Rev. April '55, p. 269.)

Now we simply cite from the same writer, the following from Brownson's Review, July '52, page 286:

"There is no Catholic dogma, taken apart from the authority of the Church, that is defensible. Deny or waive the commission of the Church, from God to teach, therefore her presence as infallible teacher, and there is nothing that she teaches us of faith that a wise man will undertake either to deny or to defend. To waive that authority, and to descend into the arena to combat with Protestants, is to concede them in the outset all they contend for, namely, the possibility of determining what is Christian faith without an infallible church. We can then combat only with arms borrowed from the Scriptures and the Fathers, and if with such arms we combat them successfully, the victory inures to them, not to us. We defeat ourselves by our very success, for our doctrine is, that, without the infallible authority of the Church, Christian faith is not determinable. We can, in our controversies with Protestants, appeal to the Scriptures and to the Fathers only to prove what the Church has always believed and taught as Christian faith; but unless the Church is already conceded to be infallible in believing and teaching, this does nothing to settle the question as to what really is Christian faith." -(Br. Rev. July '52, p. 286, '7.)

Verily, with all our faith in Dr. Brownson, we begin to think as little of his infallibility, or his "semper et ubique idem," as of his Pope's !

Having thus, incidentally given our readers an insight into the position of the "intrepid advocate," we cannot resist the desire to favor them farther with the solution of the mystery that puzzles so many--how Brownson, the Unitarian, became a Romanist. The conversion is a most philosophical one-according to his own account of it--which we append:

"The doctrine of the solidarity and communion of the race, which Leroux makes the basis of his socialism and the principle of his explanation of Christianity, has something which, perhaps, a Christian may, and even must, accept. If we may be permitted to refer to our personal experience, we must say that it was through that doctrine, as set forth by Leroux in his work on Humanity, that by the grace of God we were led to the Catholic Church; and we may add, that the same was true of several of our friends, one at least of whom is now a most worthy member of the Catholic priesthood, and one of the most indefatigable and successful Catholic missionaries in the country. We thought we saw a great and important truth in the doctrine, but also that, as Leroux laid it down, it was incomplete; and if theoretically and practically completed anywhere, it must be in the Catholic Church. We seized the doctrine with our accustomed ardor, and, developing it in our own way, found ourselves knocking at the door of the Church, and demanding entrance. Having been admitted into the Church, and commenced the study of Catholic theology in the scholastic authors, in whom we found nothing which seemed to us a recognition of it, we felt that it was our duty to waive its public consideration till we could have time and opportunity of re-examining it in the light of Catholic faith. We saw at once that the doctrine pertained to an order of thought far below Catholic dogma, and that we had erred in supposing it to be the explication and expression of the real sense of the Catholic mysteries; but how far it was or was not in harmony with them, we felt unable to say. It was a problem to be solved, and not by us till we had become somewhat more familiar than we were at the time with Catholic theology. The form under which we had entertained it was, in regard to scholastic theology, a novelty, and therefore to be suspected. It might conceal an error, and even dangerous error. It was certainly prudent, nay, it was our duty, not to insist on it, and to be content with using the language, arguments, and illustrations which we knew to be safe. Hence the trains of thought with which we made our readers so familiar during our transition state, and which had played so important a part in the process of our conversion, were suddenly interrupted the moment we entered the Church and began to write as a Catholic. They who had watched our course, and taken some interest in our progress from a

low form of rationalism to Catholicity, were unable to trace in our writings any continuity of thought between what was published the day before we entered the Church and what we wrote and published the day after. So abrupt and complete a change seemed to them inexplicable on any rational principles, and was of course ascribed to our fickleness, or to our no longer being suffered to have a mind of our own. People outside of the Church lost confidence in us, and if they continued to read us at all, it was mainly to amuse themselves with what they were pleased to look upon as our "feats of intellectual gladiatorship." This of course had its unpleasantness and its inconveniences, but it was not unendurable.

But we may say now, after more than ten years of silent thought and reflection on the subject, that, though not free from trifling errors, and much exaggerated as to their importance in our own mind, the principles which we learned from Leroux and developed and applied in our own way were substantially true, and we can, without lesion to our Catholicity, resume the train of thought which appeared to be so abruptly terminated on our entering the Church."-(Br. Rev. April '55, p. 201, '2.)

THE CRITIC AND ITS CENSORS.

IT has been our fortune from the commencement of our enterprise, to receive rather an unusual amount of the attentions, and awaken the anxieties of that very respectable class of men, who seem to regard it as their special calling, to guard the Church against all such sceptics, as doubt even that "whatever is, is right."

Had our censors chosen, either to accept of our own declaration of what we proposed to do just as we made it, or to have waited patiently to see what we actually should do, they might have spared themselves and some of their too credulous disciples, some unnecessary anxiety about the welfare of the Church, which we doubt not they sincerely love. But, determining that we must mean more than appeared in our own words, and apparently afraid to wait, till we should have space enough to give utterance to our views, lest meantime some evil should befall the Church,-they seemed to think it safest on the whole, to condemn us at the outset, and warn Presbyterians to be upon their guard.

At length we have the opportunity, at least so far as six numbers-a halfyear's work-can furnish an opportunity, of comparing what we have done, with what we proposed to do. We venture to ask of all fair minded men, a single matter-of-fact comparison of what we proposed to do, and what we have done so far, on the one hand, with what, on the other hand, we have been represented as aiming at, and actually doing, by those who have so kindly volunteered to protect the Church against us.

At the outset of our career, we set forth, as we thought, plainly and fully, the motives which actuated us, and the objects we proposed to accomplish. It may be allowable here to re-state the substance of the announcement then made:

"If, in some of its aspects, our plan seems to be a novelty, it is to be borne in mind that the immense expansion of the Presbyterian body, and of the country at large, has placed the church in this country in novel circumstances. The necessity for a fuller and more general understanding of our principles, as a church, must obviously increase, and the proper application of these principles must become more and more important as the field of the church widens and embraces new and diversified interests."

The Critic and its Censors.

[July,

"We propose a journal, which, whilst it shall aim to occupy, in common with others, the general field of doctrinal truth and religious literature, shall be more distinctively for the discussson and elucidation of the principles of Presbyterianism, as they bear upon the efforts and measures of the church for her own expansion."

"We offer our paper by no means as the rival of any of them for public patronage." "It may be suggested further, that the region of inquiry, which it is a prominent object of this paper to aid in exploring-whether as regards the abstract theoretical principles relating to the nature and functions of the church, or the concrete forms of them embodied in her ecclesiastical acts, has not hitherto attracted the attention which its importance deserves."

"Though the controversies of twenty years past have very strongly and clearly developed many of the chief points in the doctrine and order of the Presbyterian system -yet the outworking of the Presbyterian polity so far as it relates to the measures of the church for her own expansion, have received little attention. Under the pressure of strong excitement in 1837 and 1838, forced into a system of measures for church expansion, devised, indeed, by wise and great men, but still, hastily devised, in the very nature of the case; since that time constantly employed in giving the system more efficiency; to suppose these measures perfect and in need of no farther examination, would be to claim for their originators, in effect, more than human foresight, and to suppose a direct Divine inspiration in the church ever since."

"As regards the particular views of church affairs to be advocated, and the tone and spirit of our Journal, we have little to say. Considering that the parties to this work are widely scattered through four or five Synods, and perhaps differing among themselves on most of the questions which from time to time divide the opinion of our body, we can hardly be expected to speak very definitely. We therefore say, generally, that it shall be our aim in all cases that may arise, to advocate "strict construction" of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the Judicatories of the church, and strict adherence to the provisions of our standard in all ecclesiastical measures."

"We shall by no means expect to confine ourselves to subjects involving these questions alone, but to illustrate and defend, as against all corresponding forms of error, the simplicity, the purity, and the peculiar adaptation to the American people, of the Presbyterian doctrine and polity. Our great practical aim shall be to set forth the duty and the peculiar obligation resting upon the office-bearers and leaders of our church, to evince in all their official acts, and promote by their personal influence intelligent, manly, and liberal views of the duties and responsibilities of the American church. As touching the spirit and tone which shall characterize the paper, we would here express, once for all, our high regard and strong fraternal feeling for all earnestminded and sincere christian people of whatever name, in general, and for all Presbyterian people in particular. Also our high appreciation generally, of the learning, wisdom and piety of the many eminent men whom the church and the christian public honor and confide in. We are proud of our church, and of the great number of excellent and eminent men in it. And this expression of our heart's esteem and good will we desire to be taken once for all, as it will illy comport with our very restricted limits and they possibly not paid for-to preface our every strong dissent from the opinion of others with long preliminary declarations of our exalted opinion of the men personally. We are free to confess, moreover, that it comports as little with our ideas of good taste-probably from our association of this style of controversy with a school of men who have given the church trouble in time past, and whose peculiar taste for very loving and brotherly prefaces to very un-brotherly insinuations, we have admired as little as their theology. We desire to speak and to be spoken of, simply in the open, manly, dignified tone that is becoming christian gentlemen."

"We have adopted a title simply expressive of our distinctive aim. The too common association with the word "Critic" of an assuming, cynical, fault-finding spirit, was felt to be an objection-but in the true and proper sense of "Critic," cerner, a discriminator," and therefore a "Judge," it describes our chief purpose more clearly than any other word-while at the same time, our title "Review, as a 66 dispresses the incidental purpose."

ex

"We have a common aim in this, our work, and a common end to accomplish. Yet each writer is responsible for himself only. The peculiar views of the individual parties to the enterprise, touching questions which at present may divide the church, are not known one to the other. No member of the association possibly may agree with all that shall be published in any one number. We claim to be the organ of no particular ecclesiastical party in the sense of advocating one particular line of mea

sures."

"Our aim is, by discussion and, if need be, by controversy, to explain and vindicate the great principles of Christianity, with special reference to the life, posture and active operations of the Presbyterian Church. So far as bitterness and asperity may be mingled with our work: so far as we may fall, through the infirmity and sinfulness of our nature, into the error of those sons of thunder, who, in their ignorance of "what manner of spirit they were of," would fain have invoked the fire of heaven upon the enemies of their meek and lowly master; so far we trust we shall be willing to submit to the admonition of our brethren, while we ask forgiveness of Him who spareth us "as a father spareth his own son that serveth him." It is our desire, however, and by the help of God we hope to be able to abstain from giving just occasion of offence to any human being, and, particularly, to any who love our common Lord. We cannot promise not to be in earnest and, it may be vehement: but we trust, it will be, according to a distinction which has been made, the vehemence of sentiment, not the vehemence of passion. The torch shall be shook only that it may shine."

In pursuance of the scheme here laid down, we have published-aside from the minor articles in our Exchange-some forty short articles, by eleven writers: three on the subject of Seminaries and Education;-three on the offices of the Ruling Elder and the Deacon;-eight on subjects relating to the rights, privileges and duties of Church members;-eight on the Papal, Prelatical and New School Controversies;-three on the Theory of the Nature and Powers of the Church;-four on the Boards of the Church;-half a score on topics of Abstract Theology and Metaphysics, and on miscellaneous topics.

With this brief recapitulation of the manner in which we have executed, so far, our proposed work, we are prepared to consider the various grounds of objection, which have been raised against us.

First, as to the charge insinuated in so many forms, as well as openly proclaimed on the floor of the Assembly, that the "Critic" has been established to make war upon our Boards-it is very obvious that in that case we have wonderfully failed in singleness of purpose. Even on the supposition, that, in face of our plainly declared intentions in the outset, such a secret purpose has been among our chief purposes, we have certainly given a most remarkable prominence to incidental topics. As, however, this view of our aims, seems to be so pertinaciously insisted on, in spite of our disavowals, we deem it worth while to give it special attention. In the first place, then, and chiefly, the recent revival of controversy concerning the Boards, did not originate with the "Critic," nor by the spontaneous movement of any one connected with the "Critic." It was begun before this journal was projected, and that too upon the part of those who do not agree with the views of the "Critic," and was simply transferred to our pages. For it must be borne in mind that even the article republished in the "Critic," on the subject of the Boards, is in the nature of a formal reply and defence, against misrepresentations in the "Biblical Repertory," and would have been made if the "Critic" had never been established. In the following singular paragraphs is the real origin of this whole controversy:

* *

"Mr. Stuart Robinson and Mr. Armstrong opposed the adoption of the above paper, and the latter moved a substitute, which was substantially the report of the minority. Both these gentlemen expressed the opinion, that there was a growing dissatisfaction with the working of our Boards. It was time, Mr. Robinson thought, to consider whether there was not a more excellent way. Mr. Comfort of Virginia, made a very forcible speech in defence of the Boards, denying, in behalf of the laity, any of the feelings of dissatisfaction, which a few of the ministers seemed to entertain. Dr. Spring spoke with much effect on the same side. Dr. Musgrave, Secretary of the Board, closed the debate by one of the ablest and most effective speeches delivered on the floor of the Assembly for a long time. The paper given above, was then adopted with scarce a