The error of the patriotic writer is so evident that it does not need exposure. The faith and the friar are different things. Yet how deep must be the corruption of a class whose vices force an intelligent man, born and educated in the bosom of the church, to denounce his religion for the sake of its worthless teachers.
We have dwelt upon this subject because the religion—and especially the protected state religion of a country—is always of deep interest when we estimate the resources and character of a nation. Priests of all creeds obtain a sacred character in the opinion of the multitude the moment their vow is pronounced at the altar. The world believes that they part with human nature in assuming the gown, and become in reality, the divines they are called in the fashionable nomenclature of the age.
The priest, whether Protestant, Catholic, Mahomedan or Chinese, is ever an important, and often an omnipotent, member of the social world. And it behooves society in the nineteenth century to cherish Christianity instead of Flamens and Soothsayers.
It has been our principle through life to cultivate a genial feeling of toleration towards all the various sects into which the great Christian church is divided. We have resisted bigotry in all its shapes, and in all its manifestations, from whatever source. Trusting in the essential faith and discarding the external form, we have regarded all men who knelt at the altar which was cemented with the blood of the Nazarine, as a great brotherhood devoted to the religious regeneration and consequent civilization of the world. In writing, therefore, of the Catholic church in Mexico we have been pained to speak disparagingly of a part of the priesthood, whose members, in our own country, we had early in life learned to reverence for their virtuous piety, and admire for their profound learning. We know that the great theoretical dogma of that powerful church is its unity, and that its tenets, principles and practices are universally the same throughout the world. For opinions given and examples cited, in another work, we have been severely rebuked, by one of the most learned theologians in the Roman church, who argues our wilful error, upon this assumption of theoretical identity. But we have the satisfaction to know, not only from Mexicans themselves, but from American Catholics who visited the country since that criticism was issued, that our descriptions, in no instance, surpassed the reality, and that if the tenets, be in fact, the same as those entertained by the church at Rome and in the United States, the principles, and, especially, the practices of many of its ministers, vary extraordinarily from the principles and practices of its ministers here. In another portion of this work we may, probably, notice some of those practices more fully.[36]
The facts we have been obliged to state in regard to some of the materiel of the present Mexican ecclesiastical establishment do not touch the dogmas of the Catholic church though they certainly indicate so great a degree of laxity in the administration of a powerful moral, civil and religious engine endowed with immense resources, that they should attract the reforming notice of those pure branches of the Roman fraternity whose proximity will best afford them the occasion to counsel their brethren in an age of progress and competition not only in trade but in religion. Texas has already improved under the auspices of a new ecclesiastical administration since her union with the North American states and her religious alliance with their Roman Catholic Archbishopric. Nor is the importance of these ameliorations less demanded at the hands of republican ecclesiastics when we recollect that the federal constitution adopted in 1847, now the fundamental law of the land, declares in its first title, that the "religion of the Mexican nation is, and will be perpetually, the Catholic, apostolic, Roman. The nation protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other!" Men, in Mexico, must not only not pray as they please, but, constitutionally, they must not believe as they please. A priesthood which is thus indissolubly and exclusively welded to the state in a republic, should be, indeed, peculiarly sacred and pure. Sole, despotic ecclesiastical power, based upon numerical strength,—intolerant of all other modes of worship or modifications of Christianity,—is an anomaly in the nineteenth century, nor is it likely that the civil liberty of a nation can ever become secure or worthy, until religious liberty is, at least, permitted if not enjoined by its paramount law. These two elements of human right and progress have ever moved hand in hand. It is a mockery to separate them and tell the people they are free. The indefeisible rights of reason and judgment are sapped and stifled. When conscience, even, must struggle with legal shackles in its intercourse with God, what must be the conflict of the soul in its intercourse with man!
"We speak not of mens' creeds—they rest between
Man and his Maker;"—
but we have confined our observations in this work, exclusively to those painful exhibitions which cannot fail to strike a stranger as disadvantageous both to intellectual progress and the pure and spiritual adoration of God. The mixture of antique barbaric show and Indian rites, may have served to attract the native population at the first settlement of the country; but their continuance is in keeping neither with the spirit of the age nor the necessities of a republic. While the priesthood has contrived, in the course of centuries, to attract the wealth of multitudes, and to make itself, in various ways, the richest proprietor of the nation, the people have been impoverished and continued ignorant. Not content with the natural influence possessed by a church whose members are spread all over the republic, the hierarchy of Mexico, has exacted a constitutional recognition not only of its permanence, but of its right to exclude all other faiths, and all other religious reunions for worship. It appears, therefore, just that in such a republic it was the duty of the Roman church voluntarily to unfetter its wealth, to reform its priesthood, to sweep into the public coffers the useless jewels that adorn the altars and statues, yet do not glorify the Almighty; and to imitate the virtues, resolution and self-denial of its ministers in our country, who, while blending themselves in politics and public spirit most effectually with the masses, have devoted their lives to the education of people of all creeds and classes for support and independence.
"Far from the goods of the church being exempted because they are consecrated to God," says Vattel in his immortal work, "it is for that very reason that they should be the first taken for the welfare of the state. There is nothing more agreeable to the common Father of men than to preserve a nation from destruction. As God has no need of property, the consecration of goods to him, is their devotion to such purposes as are pleasant to him. Besides,—the property of the church, by the confession of the clergy themselves, is chiefly destined for the poor; and when the state is in want, it is, doubtless, the first pauper, and the worthiest of succor."[37]