ed to be demonstrated, no one would ever have disturbed him.*

As to the second point, we would remind the Reviewer, that, while we accept his authority on any question of the constitution of the Methodist society, we do not recognize it where he assumes to speak as a Catholic doctor. We told him, and we tell him again, that the Inquisition is not an institution of which Catholics predicate infallibility. It is no essential part of the Church, and its decrees have been and may be set aside by a higher authority. "It is sufficient for us to know," says the Reviewer, "that the decrees of that court claim to be infallible, and are enacted with that claim with the Pope's knowledge and approbation, and the condemnation of heretical books and persons by the holy officer are as much the act of the Church of Rome as any act of the supreme Pontiff.". p. 477. Here are many things jumbled together that should be kept distinct. We have no time or space to disentangle them. The Inquisition without the Pope is evidently not infallible, according to Catholic principles. Admit its decrees, when formally approved by the Pope, and thus made his, are to be held by Catholics as infallible, it still will not affect the case before us; for the approbation of the Pope was not thus given to the condemnation of the doctrine in 1616, and in 1633 it was not, as we have seen, in question. The act which received the Pope's approbation was the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, when the question turned not on the doctrine, but on Galileo's contempt of authority.

"And whatever Mr. B. may say, this has been the opinion of abler and better informed Roman Catholics than himself." - p. 477. If the Reviewer means that it is the opinion of abler and better informed Roman Catholics that the Inquisition is an institution of which Catholics predicate infallibility, we deny it, and challenge him to prove his assertion. If he means simply that some Catholics as well as Protestants have taken a different view of the condemnation of Galileo from the one we have given, we do not deny it, and have no wish to deny it, for Catholics are not infallible, and may err in their version of historical facts.

For a full discussion of the subject, and references to the proper authorities, we refer our readers to the article on Galileo and the Inquisition, in the eighth number of the Dublin Review, from which we have drawn pretty much all the materials of our former and our present reply, and which is our authority for what we advanced then and have repeated now. VOL. III. NO. I. 14

"And in the preface of the Jesuits' edition of Newton's Principia, we have the clearest evidence that the editors supposed his system under ban of the Church. This is the language:'Newton in his third book supposes the motion of the earth. We could not explain the author's propositions otherwise than by making the same supposition. We are therefore forced to sustain a character not our own; but we profess to pay the obsequious reverence which is due to the decrees pronounced by the supreme pontiffs against the motion of the earth.'"p. 477. This would seem to be conclusive; but, unhappily for the Reviewer, this Jesuits' edition of Newton's Principia is a pure fiction. The Jesuits never published such an edition, and the language quoted never was written by a Jesuit. The language betrays at a single glance its origin. There are no decrees, and there never were any decrees, pronounced by the supreme Pontiffs against the motion of the earth. The Jesuits never published an edition of Newton's Principia, except the edition by Father Boscovich, and that is not the edition referred to. The edition cited was got up by a couple of infidel editors, in France, we believe, and was palmed off as an edition of the Jesuits. The extract the Reviewer quotes from the preface bears the living impress of the French infidel of the last century. No Jesuit could ever have spoken thus ironically of what he held to be a decision of the sovereign Pontiff. It would be even more out of character than for the Reviewer to invoke the Blessed Virgin, or to officiate at High Mass.

We here take our leave of the Methodist Quarterly Review, by simply reminding the editor that he is not qualified to be our biographer. His assertion, that there are hundreds of living witnesses who heard our atheistical lectures in the city of Boston," is absolutely and unqualifiedly false; for we never gave an atheistical lecture in the city of Boston or elsewhere in our life. We never were, properly speaking, an atheist, a Transcendentalist, or a pantheist, the assertion of the Reviewer to the contrary notwithstanding. For a few months, some years ago, we had, it is true, some doubts as to the existence of God; but, since the latter part of the year 1830, we are not conscious of having had, even for a moment, a single doubt cross our mind of the existence or the providence of God. It is true that we fell unconsciously into some speculations which had a Transcendental and pantheistic tendency; but, the moment we discovered that they had that tendency, we renounced them, and for the very reason, that they had it.

107 We have been, ever since we resided in Boston, or for the last ten years, constantly writing and publishing against both Transcendentalism and pantheism. We have had errors enough, without having laid to our charge errors we have never entertained. There are few people living who can write our biography, and if journalists would confine themselves to the discussion of our writings, and let the personal life and history of the writer go, they would show their good sense and discretion. The Methodist Quarterly has always been unfortunate in its attempts to enlighten the public concerning us personally. Will it not learn wisdom from experience ?

ART. V. The Roman Church and Modern Society. Translated from the French of PROFESSOR E. QUINET, of the College of France. Edited by C. EDWARDS LESTER. New York: Gates and Stedman. 1845.

pp. 198.

THIS work purports to be a publication of M. Quinet's course of lectures on the present state of the Catholic Church. Its design may be gathered from the following extract, taken from the preface, written we presume by its American editor.

"In France, where a strong religious feeling is springing up of late years, a feeling which the Jesuits have endeavoured to avail themselves of for their own purposes, this work has exerted a most salutary influence. By delineating the Roman Church as it actually is, by showing the spirit which actuates it and the hands. that direct it, and by the contrast he draws between these and the true spirit of Christianity, the true Catholicism, M. Quinet has rendered a service to the cause of religion in France which cannot be estimated too highly.

"But it is not in France and Italy alone that this work is destined to have an influence. The depth and comprehensiveness of the author's views, the vast scope of his thought, the extent and minute accuracy of his historical researches, and the consummate skill with which he applies the whole of history to his subject, render it a work of universal interest and importance.

"We see here clearly pointed out the elements of the greatness of the Roman Catholic Church in former times, and the causes which have led to its present state of decadence, the means it has

employed in all ages to accomplish its designs of universal dominion, and the reasons of their failure, the agencies it is bringing to bear upon modern society, and the course it is necessary to pursue in order to baffle its designs.

"We see also in what respects it is the antagonist of LIBERTY, though scrupling not to make use of that sacred name, whenever it can subserve its purposes of despotic authority. We see how, instead of sympathizing in that spirit of progress which is the life of modern society, it is ever struggling to preserve that state of utter immobility, or rather to bring about that retrograde movement, which leads to spiritual death. Have not these things an importance and an interest for us on this side of the Atlantic, as well as for Europeans?

"Moreover, this is not an affair of the Roman Catholic Church alone. Every church, every sect of Christendom, may here learn a lesson; a lesson of Christian toleration and brotherly kindness, a lesson of moderation in the midst of zeal,- -a lesson of perpetual progress.

"The effects of this discussion in Europe are already apparent. The Jesuits, that powerful association, whose malign influence rested like an incubus upon the clergy, and through them upon the people of France, have already been compelled to abandon her soil. The mode also of their departure is remarkable, as differing entirely from their usual manner of proceeding. They have not waited to be expelled by the government, but they have voluntarily retired. They have given up the contest in France. They have felt that public opinion was too strong for them.

"This result is in a great measure to be attributed to the labors of M. Quinet, and of his friend and colleague, M. Michelet. The work of which this is a translation, and the joint work of both these eminent men upon the Jesuits, have, by enlightening the public as to their real character, been mainly instrumental in relieving France from their presence." - pp. v. – viii.

The first question which naturally arises, on reading this, is, What is "the true spirit of Christianity, the true Catholicism," with which M. Quinet contrasts the Catholic Church? We cannot well determine the value or importance of an author's judgments, till we know the point of view from which he writes, and the standard by which he judges. Happily, we have not to seek far in order to answer this question. M. Quinet published some time since a work entitled Ahasuerus, from which we translate a few pages, which we find quoted with approbation by M. Pierre Leroux, in the article Bonheur in his Encyclopédie Nouvelle. They are from the Third Day, entitled Death. The scene is laid in the Cathedral of Strasburg.

The dead are represented as coming out of their tombs, and bitterly complaining that our blessed Saviour has deceived them; for they have not found that heaven he promised them, and in which they had placed all their hopes of happiness.

66 CHORUS OF DEAD KINGS.

"O Christ! O Christ! why hast thou deceived us? O Christ! why hast thou lied to us? For a thousand years we have rolled in our tombs, beneath our chiselled slabs, trying to find the gate of thy heaven; we find only the web which the spider spins above our heads. Where, then, are the sounds of the viols of thy angels ? We hear only the sharp saw of the worm that eats our tombs. Where is the bread with which thou wast to nourish us? We have only our tears for our drink. Where is thy Father's house? where his starry canopy? Is it the dry fountain we have hollowed out with our nails? Is it this polished slab against which we strike our heads day and night? Where is the flower of thy vine which was to heal the wound of our hearts? We have found only the lizard that crawls over our marble slabs, and we have seen only the snakes which spit their venom on our lips. O Christ! why hast thou deceived us?

66 CHORUS OF WOMEN.

"O Virgin Mary! why have you deceived us? On awaking, we have sought by our sides our children, our little ones, our darlings, who should smile upon us from their azure nests; we have found only brambles, dead mallows, and nettles, sinking their roots over our heads.

"CHORUS OF CHILDREN.

"How dark it is in this stone cradle here! How hard is my cradle! Where is my mother, to take me up? Where is my father, to rock me? Where are the angels, to give me my robe, my beautiful robe of light? Father, mother, where are you? I am afraid, I'm afraid here in my stone cradle.

66 THE EMPEROR CHARLEMAGNE.

"Christ! Christ! since you have deceived me, give me back my hundred monasteries concealed in the Ardennes; give me back the golden bells baptized in my name, my shrines and chappelles, my banners spun on the wheel of Bertha, my ciboriums, and my people kneeling from Roncevaux to the Black Forest.

"Give us back our crowns of flowers and baskets of roses