Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Next Page
OCR
THE CATHOLIC WTERALD,
13 PUBLISHED EVERY reeeee BY
No. 61 North "Second Street, Phil deij hia.
Terms.— rareo 1 Dollars per, annum, payable half yearly
tn adea Fi @ Dollars wiil be received (ur 2 copies, or 1
‘opy for two yo 218. ‘rearaizes must be scitled prior to
ordering a paper to be discontinued. All Coumutinications,
except from Agents, or Subscribers enclosing remittances,
must be post paid, and ‘addressed “'I'o’ the Hditor of the
Catholic Herald, Philadelphia, Pa.’?
Doctry, :
“For the Catholic Herald.
vay CALL Back THE:PAST.
BUWARD J. PORTER.
> Call back the past eco soon it has fled,
Lis veil o'er sunny hours is spread,
“Yes, call them back those gladsome hours,
‘Whose pathway was strewn with most exquisite flowers,
They have withered, alas! their day of bloom
Ts Jost in the labyrinth of the tomb.
’ Call back the past!—for with it have gone. «
The friends of my childhood, and all alone
I silently pace my ancestral hall
While my echoing fuotsteps now » santinely fll.
>. On my shuddering ears—and the moaning breeze
» Most dismally howls throu; sh ils galleries,
Call back the past!—it is sweet to raise 1
‘The veil of oblivion, and once more .
‘In rapture on scenes that have long awsed by, .
‘Phat calf up the smile, and the deep-drawa sigh ; :
© The cup of pleasure though dashed with pain,
Let me raise to my thireting lips again.
Call back the past {—as its scenes shall pass
In softened light over memory's glass,
» 1 will seem to have lived o’er cach hour and day,
oT will weep with the mourner and smile with the gay,
I will move in the dance—and in melody
Vie with the rainstrelsof days gone by.”
Call back the past !—at the altar beside
ler own betrothed the fair young bride
Shall stand, and lovely as life shail seem
‘That beautiful pair in my exquisite dream,
And the flowers of her bridal wreath shal} bloom
So fiir that e’en fancy shall lend them perfume. .
Call back the past!—let the bright blue eye
as theeyening sky
‘That beamed as ¢3
Of a cloudless day, on me now rest
Beneath whose glance | alone was bless'd—
« How pale is iis ray!—and round that brow
Are the shades of ihe drooping willow’s bough, © *
Call back the past !—Ict those lips but meet bis
One moment with mine, Le it ever so fleet; :
{.. Oh be that form Lut one moment pressed | ‘
-. ‘To my wildly throbbing, widow'd breast; >, fl
. grasp in vain—from my arms, oh why 6s
Dost’thou my own, my beautiful Ay!
_ Away with the vision!—no more I call
_ The departed back (rem the faneral pall,”
The lovely things that have passed awa:
From earth and returned to their kindred clay
No more will 1 bid from theif resting come—
et them peacefutly sleep in the dreamlees tomb! |”
Philo March, 1841.
From the Catholic Telegraph.
“ HEAVEN. !
' Beyond yon deep blue sea afar,
Above the Ken of mortal eye,
Beyond the brilliant, sitent star—~
” ‘The spirit finds her native sky.
That home with all its bliss serene,
«4. No human eloquence can tell,
- No heart disturbed with thoughts serene,
. The chorus of the pure can swell, Ve
. How faintly do our thoughts unfold,
The visions of that clime of Gold,
Where spirit-hosts with outstretched wing,
Through all their Sacred orders bright,» '. « ,
1s » Incanticles of triumph sing, re
‘The glory of theG d of light,
| subdue the opposition of the innovator, nor command that
+ of ecclesiastical history. (See Reply to Bishop Hopkins.) ! If
J
+ And sound above such Sacred lyres, °°:
»As only heav'n itself inspires. .
Ob! for a home in that bright land, a
With all ils beatific band!
Where Angel-host and Seraphim, —
And those who lived fur God alone, 6
' Give praise continually to Elim, 5
1 “) 4." Who guards the everlasting throne!
No grief shall ever enter there,
No tear disturb its blest repose,
, No feeble age nor wasting care,
_ Nor memory of human woes, . :
Be glad, be glad, for swiftly glide, j
Our barks slong the rapid tide, .
atl The clouds depart and soon we'll view, ‘
Our happy homes etherial blue, Save
Where Jike Saint John our svuls shall rest;
/ In glory on the Saviour's breast.
‘SHE OXPORKD DIVINES AND N. Y.;CHUKCHMAN.
Last week, we were unable to give the Churchman's de-
fence of the Oxford Divines, from the imputation of favour-
ing the progress of Catholicism, as we had promised.” "We
now insert, together with a. few observations, in the shape
of notes.
“What isit that Mr. Boardman himself most fears. in
Romanism ?. What is it fiat gives to this system the dis-
tincliveness of Popery?’ Is it not the consolidation of the
system! Is it not the iron band which binds the whole, not
merely in unzty to oneanother, but in union toasingle man?(1)
(1.) Unity of faith cannot long continue, without union
among those who profess it, If tnat union be conventional,
it is a rope of sand; if it be of buman institution, it can never
implicit obedience which is so necessary fur the preserva-
tion of unity of faith, but so difficult on the part of those who
are required to forego their own views when they come into
collision with the doctrines of faith. _ The bond. may be_of
iron; but it is on that account the more secure.
“Mr. Boardman will agree with us thet unity ia the fait
isa blessing, and that union to the Pope of Rome—not asa
bishop favored with precedence, nur even as Head of the
Charch, jure ecclesiastico, butas the Vicar of Curist, and
as Head of the Church on earth jure divino, isa grievous
deterioration and perversion of Curistianity.”(2)
(2.) So far from being a grievous deterioration and per- |
version of Christianity, the authgrity of the Pope as Head of
the Church on earth, jure divino, (by right divine) is estab-
lished by Scripture testimony of the strongest character, by
the unanimous testimony of the earliest aud most distiaguish-
ed of the Fathers of the Church, and by the whole, teaour
a Llead of the Church be useful or necessary, jure eccle-
siastico, (i. €, by ecclesiastical institution,) surely it cannot be
needless or noxious by the institution of Christ,
» Now admitting for (and only for) argument’s sake, that
the Oxford Divines have adopted all the views and practices
which Mr, Boardinan, ia.a wholesule way, calls “ the cor-
ruption of Popery,”. yet since they" contend (as they most
strenuously do contend (for the independence of bishops, is
it pot plain that they are as diametrically opposed as Mr.
Boardman himself to the distinctive element of Popery, and
that which gives to the system its whole strength, vitality,
and terror, consolidation under the autocrat of Rome. "(3)
@.) The autocrat of Rome!—This ig a hard word; but
does not hurt inuch, because itis perfectly inapplicable to the
Ronan Pontitk Eighteen centuries of experience shew,—
what our belief in the divine institution of the Papacy, would,
of itself, be suflicient to convince us of —that, Instead ‘of
being ‘an autocrat’ in the obnoxious meaning of ‘the ‘word,
the Roman Poutiff has always been guided in his decision
by the rales of prudence and justice, and that he bas never
sanctioned or decreed any thing incompatible with that true
liberty with which Christ has made us free.—'Consolidation
under the autocrat of Rome," may haye a startling sound;
but without what is misrepresented by the word, unity of
faith must not be looked for. ‘As to the “independence of
bishops,’ what is but congregationstism on a large scale,
and with an imposing name? >> ++)»
: “The great problem which Protestants have to.solve, is to
maintain the unity of the faith, without subjugation to any
sing]e head on eurth."(4)
Whole Number 428 ”
(4.) That is, to believe as each one likes, and yetall think,
alike. This is, indeed,a great, and, we are convinces, an
insoluble problem,
“They have thus far essayed this problem in vaie."(5)
(5.) Protestante, then, cannot have the principle of. unity
laiddown by Christ...Can any one seriously believe that
after groping for it, during, three centuries, they should still
be in ¢ darkness visible,’
“ And yet while we have the example of the Primitive
Charch, we canaot pronounce the problem iropracticable."(6)
(6.) The Editor here slyly supposes, —what he well knows,
cannot be proved—that the ‘ Primitive Church’ proceeded
on the Protestant principle. Had this been the case,—as
the human mind is the same atal] times—the Primitive
Church would have been, bke Protestantism, an upsightly cul-
lection of discordant sects.
“It ison the principles of that Church, —all of which have
been providentially preserved in their own communion—that
the influential divines of the Church of England, to whom
Mr, Boardman alludes, have rallied.”(7)
-(7.) As tothe principles ‘ providentially’ preserved in the
English Church, we refer to the admirable letter of Catho~
licug in our last; a perusal of which will shew that tho
principles of the English Church are as undefinable and Pres *
teus-form things as can well be conceived. .It may, indeed
be doubted whether she has any principles at all; those
which are maintained by the Oxford divines, for example,
being disclaimed by a very large and influential portion of the
clergy, who, in their turn, are accused of entirely mistaking
the principles and character of the Church: and until Vic.
toria, or the English Parliament, decide, the question wil] re-
main undetermined. As for Protestant Episeopaliavism in this.
country, there is no means left of terminating the differences
by which its members are divided ; its parties seem fated -
like the Kilkenny cats, te eat each other up, and Jeave noth-
ing but their tails to attest their prowess and record their vic~
tory, 4.»
> “They would take the Word of Gop, as received by. the /
general councils of the Church, while yet she was Catholic ;
and undivided, and dispense it by means of a co-equal, co:
ordinate, independent episeopacy.”"(8) «
(8.) Who is to judge of the meaning of the Word of God?
—or of the meaning ofthe decision of the first four general
councils,—especially as. these first four councils have not
decided ald the questions that have arisen with regard to
faith? “Is it the Church t.° Then the individual must bow
to some ecclesiastical autocrat. Is it the individual—be be
layman, presbyter, or bi shop. Then the Church's authority
in ‘ controversies of faith,’ is an unmeaning thing—a bauble
to be disregarded for the more imposing dictates of Private |
opinion or private whim,
“Is this Popery? If so, it is at least to adopt the intended
sarcasm, but real eulogy ofthe celebrated Mr. Newry Hat-
LAM, (see British Mugazine of last month,) * ReprBuican :
‘opery ;” a popery which permits the Church of Curist to
bea Spiritual commenwealth; which Secures subordination
consistently with liberty; which receives men into commu- :
nion on the same profession as was made in the Primitive’
Church, and without the new articles imposed by the Creed
of Pius IV. ; ; which, whatever pious opinions and usages it
may faver, does not make them binding as articles of faith ; ;
and which provides for the government of the Church on the
principle of co-equal rights and authority vested in all the
bishops throughout the world, and not on the principle of su- >
preme authority vested in a single person at Rome, Mr.
Hallam meant another hard hit when he said that the Catho- :
ie Church in this view is an “ abstraction ;” if so, where is
* Popery ?” and if so, why assail it with Buch fierce and ° .
noky hostility?"(9) »
(9.) Mr. Hallam isright—albeit the’ reclamation ‘of the
Churchman. The Church, according to Anglican notions, is’
indeed an “ abstraction ;”"—a non-entity; devised for the !
purpose of conciliating faith with unbelief—the language of*
antiquity with the novelties which that antiquity would have.
anathematized,~-and all this, with the possession of the richest,
ecclesiastical livings in the Christian world. ‘ This is the *
real cause of Anglicanism having Preserved the form, after i it
lost the constituents, of a church.
“But do Mr. Boardman and others believe that the Ro»
manists reglly agree with the Oxtord Divines,(10) as theit