Some one has very happily represented good manners as “minor morals.” And certain it is that vulgarity and vice are intimately related; that the low, vulgar fellow will ever be found but a few removes from a positively vicious one.
Love, refinement, social cultivation are all closely allied with righteousness; these, always and everywhere, constitute the true gentleman and lady.
THE COUNCILS AT BALTIMORE.
It was a noteworthy fact that two of the three great religious bodies of this country were holding councils in the same city in the last days of 1884. The city of Baltimore enjoys the distinction of being both a Catholic and a Methodist city. The former is the older claimant, since it was founded by English Catholics; but Methodism, also founded by Englishmen, has a Baltimore history which occasioned the centennial conference of last month. It was in Baltimore, Christmas 1784, that a few circuit riders organized the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is doubtless through the effectiveness of that organization that Methodism holds its position as the religious union of the largest population embraced in any one organization in this country. The Catholics are ordinarily reckoned the most numerous, because they count population and Methodists count only members; but taking the former basis as a common measure, the various branches of Methodism are doubtless the most numerous; and it is probable that by the same tests the Baptists outnumber the Catholics. If the Presbyterian bodies could be counted together, and the Lutherans and Congregationalists included, we should have a third great body of Protestants which may possibly outnumber the Catholics. Two other communions, the Protestant Episcopal and the Unitarian, would be in the first rank of religious influence if we attempted to measure and compare by this test. Taking account of members only, the most difficult problem of religious statistics is to determine whether any religious organization is relatively increasing. The unattached population, and the independent Protestant organizations, have been growing in numbers for a score of years; and the Protestant communions can not count by population without including the same persons in more than one church. It is not surprising that the Catholics most easily make an imposing array in the statistical tables. The precise count is not important in this place. The Catholics and Methodists are large bodies of American Christians, and they have some common features as well as some striking contrasts.
Both communions owe their success (if we take worldly measurement) to their vigorous management and subordination of their clergy for the good of the common cause. A Methodist itinerant and a Catholic priest resemble each other very little, but they are alike in being men who are “sent,” and who “obey orders.” Their personal choices and well-being are subordinated to a service and devotion. They alike resign at the doors of the temple their rights to serve and please themselves. It may be said that all Christians should do this; but this self-surrender is to the priest and the itinerants objective as well as subjective. It means that they go where they are sent by a human authority which they identify with the divine will. They are sacrificed to the general good; they suffer that others may rejoice—always under an external and visible authority. Another point of resemblance is the practical liberty of laymen in both churches. Theoretically the Catholic and the Methodist laymen are both bound to considerable service and duties. Methodism began in a rigor of religious duties which makes one wonder how John Wesley missed founding a new Catholic order of world-renouncing priests and lay brothers. Catholicism is theoretically even more rigorous. In the progress of this century, both laities have achieved more liberty than is good for them; the priest and the itinerant serve and sacrifice for all. A bright-eyed Methodist editor called attention some years ago to the fact that his church tolerates no heresy in ministers and pays little attention to the doctrinal vagaries of its laymen. It is doubtless true of both Catholics and Methodists; though neither church is prepared to make any admission of the sort or ever will be. The theory in each case calls for sound believing; and it is probably a just judgment which says that liberty is the atmosphere required for the growth of sound faith.
Another point of resemblance between Catholic and Methodist is that both communions have had a great mission to preach to the poor; and that they have preached to such effect that large numbers of their poor have become rich, not so obviously in faith as in worldly goods. We mean not to sneer, but to put our finger on the objective reality which lies before us. He is a careless man who fails to see that Methodism and Catholicism have produced industry, thrift, temperance and wealth in classes of people who were miserably poor at the outset. The fact has long been understood of Methodists; a special fact has obscured this large one among Catholics. There has been a steady inflow of poverty from the Old World and the Catholics have received into their communion a very large portion of this poverty. Their needy have been most abundantly recruited and continue to be. But at the same time their poor have grown wealthy all over the land. The Puritan farmer is disappearing in New England and the Irish Catholic is taking his place. Wealthy Catholics abound in all the large cities.
There are many points of contrast between the two communions. We suggest a single one, still looking at externals and not at creeds. While Methodism has for a quarter of a century been one of the most influential factors in politics—not at all as a machine, but altogether as an influence—Catholicism has during the same period almost lapsed out of sight as a political element. This resulted from the foreign character and training of the majority of the priests and people, and from wise avoidance of occasions of odium by the Catholic prelates. We suggest this contrast without drawing any inferences from it. For the near future, it is safe to predict a change on the Catholic side. Their Baltimore council will, by force of associations which are full of significance, tend to produce change. In Baltimore the Catholic may properly remember his claims to be and live an American of the Americans. That church has had a vast body of foreigners to naturalize; it has done the work under an array of obstacles which seemed too formidable to be overcome. It is a near day when the Americanism of the Catholics of this country will come to the proof of its quality and value. At Baltimore the thoughtful priest must have been moved to remember what claims he has on the country and what claims the country has on him. We shall as a people suffer some bitter trials and humiliations if the Catholics are not to be genuine Americans and ardent patriots. They are too many to be neutral or hostile.