An American theologian and author. He was born in Stockbridge, Vt., and was brought up as a Presbyterian, but became a Universalist preacher, and was a vigorous and indefatigable writer in support of whatever belief he for the time adopted. In 1828 he went into politics, and tried to establish a Workingmen’s Party in New York, moved thereto by the ideas of Robert Owen. In 1832 he was enthusiastic over Dr. Channing, and became a Unitarian preacher. In 1836 he organized in Boston “The Society of Christian Progress” as a church, of which he was pastor. At this period, also, Brownson was one of the New England Transcendentalists, and published “New Views of Christianity,” “Society and the Church,” which was a moderate attack on Protestantism. In 1838 he started the Boston Quarterly Review, which had existence for about five years, and was then merged in the New York Democratic Review, and from 1844 was known as Brownson’s Quarterly Review. This was written throughout almost entirely by Brownson himself. In 1840 he published “Charles Elwood: or, The Infidel Converted,” a treatise, in the form of a story, in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, toward which the author was drifting, and which he joined in 1844. A deeply spiritual man, he gained a reputation as a philosopher and a powerful Catholic apologist, in spite of his frequent conflicts with the Church authorities. His most important writings, in addition to those mentioned above, are: “The Convert: or Leaves from My Experience” (1857); “The American Republic; Its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny” (1870). His “Works” have been republished by his son, H. F. Brownson, in 20 volumes (1882–87). The latter has also published a “Life,” in 3 vols. (1898–1900).

Personal

  I am no saint, never was, and never shall be a saint; I am not, and never shall be, a great man; but I always had, and I trust I always shall have, the honor of being regarded by my friends and associates as impolitic, as rash, imprudent, and impracticable. I was and am, in my natural disposition, frank, truthful, straightforward, and earnest; and, therefore, have had, and, I doubt not, shall carry to the grave with me, the reputation of being reckless, ultra, a well-meaning man, perhaps an able man, but so fond of paradoxes and extremes, that he cannot be relied on, and is more likely to injure than serve the cause he espouses. So, wise and prudent men shake their heads when my name is mentioned, and disclaim all solidarity with me.

  Dr. Brownson was then [1834] in the very prime of manhood. He was a handsome man, tall, stately, and of grave manners. His face was clean shaven. The first likeness of him that I remember appeared in the Democratic Review, published by O’Sullivan and Langtry. It made him look like Proudhon, the French socialist. This was all the more singular because at that time he was really the American Proudhon, though he never went so far as “La proprtété, c’est le vol.” As he appeared on the platform and received our greeting he was indeed a majestic man, displaying in his demeanor the power of a mind altogether above the ordinary. But he was essentially a philosopher, and that means that he never could be what is called popular. He was an interesting speaker, but he never sought popularity. He never seemed to care much about the reception his words received, but he exhibited anxiety to get his thoughts rightly expressed and to leave no doubt about what his convictions were. Yet among a limited class of minds he always awakened real enthusiasm—among minds, that is, of a philosophical tendency. He never used manuscript or notes; he was familiar with his topic, and his thoughts flowed out spontaneously in good, pure, strong, forcible English. He could control any reasonable mind, for he was a man of great thoughts and never without some grand truth to impart. But to stir the emotions was not in his power, though he sometimes attempted it; he never succeeded in being really pathetic.

  He was so arbitrary and dogmatic [1844] that most people did not like him; but I appreciated his acquaintance, as he was a liberal thinker and had a world of information which he readily imparted to those of a teachable spirit.

General

  In logical accuracy, in comprehensiveness of thought, and in the evident frankness and desire for truth in which it is composed, [“Charles Elwood”] we know of few theological treatises which can be compared with it.

  With regard to Mr. Brownson’s merits as a cultivator of that philosophy of society which he professes, a candid estimate would probably determine that his own contributions to it amount to nothing: we cannot discover any one element of opinion, any one definite view, any single principle of arrangement or detail, which a future historian will refer to his name as connected with its first appearance in the science…. The style of Mr. Brownson has some good qualities. It is commonplace, without purity, and destitute of any characteristic brilliancy or elegance; but it is natural, direct, and plain. It is that simple and unaffected manner which has the appearance of being formed, not upon any plan, but merely by practice and use. Occasionally his better taste is overcome by the faults of Carlyle, or some other favourite of the hour; but when he uses his own style, it would be difficult to name an author who renders abstruse subjects so familiar, or conducts the most arduous discussions with greater ease.

  Mr. Brownson is an active thinker, an energetic writer, and a man who has assumed an important position in American literature by years of steady labor. He has devoted himself during that time to the highest questions of philosophy, ethics, and theology, and has treated none of these subjects in a superficial or commonplace way. He has also belonged for a time, after a fashion of his own, to our communion. He has repeatedly created sensations by his ultraism on several subjects, and he finally astonished our community by going over from extreme Neology and Transcendentalism to Romanism of the most Ultramontane kind.

  The style of Mr. Brownson is a remarkably felicitous one for the discussion of abstract topics; full, fluent, easily intelligible, meeting the philosophic requirements of the subject, at the same time preserving a popular interest, it was well adapted to enlist the popular ear. As a vehicle for the speculations of the scholar it still preserves its attraction to those who delight in mental gladiatorial exercises, or are curious to note the reconciliation of the “chartered libertine” in doctrine to the authoritative voice of the Church.

  Dr. Brownson is an exceedingly able and acute reasoner, and a clear and forcible writer. As might be expected, his religious convictions permeate nearly every sentence. With most authors there are certain fields on which there is a truce to controversy: but Dr. Brownson, with more logic, perhaps, but with less amenity, treats every subject, from metaphysics to an album sonnet, in its relations to the church; and it is almost impossible to give the best specimens of his style without introducing topics that do not belong in a collection of literature.

  The power of Dr. Brownson as a writer lies principally in the exposition of the fundamental principles of faith or reason. When he developed these principles and their consequences, he appeared as if armed with the club and might of Hercules, with which he crushed the Hydra of error with its several heads of heresy, infidelity, and atheism. “His style was as clear and forcible as the train of thought and reasoning of which it was the expression.” A certain childlike simplicity and candor, an apparent love of truth which sought for no disguise, and a boldness of spirit which took no account of earthly considerations, gave to his writings a singular charm and influence.

  Mr. Brownson was a remarkable man, remarkable for intellectual force, and equally for intellectual wilfulness. His mind was restless, audacious, swift; his self assertion was immense; his thoughts came in floods; his literary style was admirable for freshness, terseness and vigor. Of rational stability of principle he had nothing, but was completely at the mercy of every novelty in speculation. That others thought as he did, was enough to make him think otherwise; that he thought as he had six months before was a signal that it was time for him to strike his tent and move on. An experimenter in systems, a taster of speculations, he passed rapidly from one phase to another, so that his friends ascribed his steadfastness to Romanism, to the fatigue of intellectual travelling.

  Those who may read the essays on political matters contained in these volumes, will not fail to note that the author’s political opinions or views of government ran parallel with his religious or theological convictions. At first he was a radical, a believer in the majesty, the infallibility,—the divinity, I may say,—of the masses, placing the origin of all authority in the individual man, attempting to establish the association or community system of government; seeking the overthrow of all priesthood because it binds the conscience; of the banks, because they are in the interest of the business class or employers and opposed to the laboring class or employed; of the transmission of property by will or descent, because a man’s right to his property ceased with his death, and he would have the State apportion it amongst the most needy. As he came to acknowledge the authority of God in matters of religion, he saw that power too was from him and thenceforth held that government was necessary for the preservation of order and the restraining of license, and although the political people are the means or channel through which the State derives its power, yet that power, whether monarchical, aristocratic, democratic, or mixed, is from God, and he that resists it resists God. Thus from a radical, a destroyer of all authority, he came to see in human Government a likeness and imitation of Divine Providence; not an evil to be hated and resisted, but a beneficent agent for the protection of right, the advancement of civilization, the aid of religion, science, art, and learning, and next to religion the greatest means by which man may attain his destiny, and as such to be loved, obeyed, and defended. The essays of Dr. Brownson on theology, politics, and morals, are all based on his philosophy, according to which nature and grace, reason and revelation, the order of reality and that of science are brought into the harmony which for three hundred years had been the aim of thinking men.

  This is not so much a history as a political study; but its author was so vigorous a thinker and writer that it is well worthy of the historical student’s attention. Dr. Brownson was essentially a reviewer of books, and not a maker of them; but in the volume before us he has embodied the best part of his writings…. The reader will probably dissent from the writer quite as often as he agrees with him; but, in spite of this fact, he will find the vigor and originality of the work exceedingly suggestive.

  There are names connected with Catholic literature in America that we should ever hold in honor and benediction. Such is the name of Orestes A. Brownson. Do we realize all the greatness covered by that name? America has produced no more powerful intellect than Brownson’s. There was no problem, social, political, religious, or philosophical, that he did not grapple with and find an answer for…. The very ring of his sentences was a trumpet-blast to us of the rising generation. He taught us how to take our stand upon his own high plane of thought, and thence survey the beautiful harmony of our creed with all that is good and noble in the natural world. He brought home, not to us alone, but to the cultured intellect throughout the Christian world—for he had admirers in all parts and among all creeds—the great truths of natural and revealed religion with a grasp, a force, and an energy of expression worthy of an Aquinas. We were led to hold up our heads and to be proud of the faith that could inspire such sublime thoughts and control such a noble nature. His great intellect was only equalled by his profound humility.

  One of the most powerful minds, the most intense personalities, in American literature is that of Orestes Brownson, whose distinguishing trait, at first glance, is the broad range of interests, of thought, and of knowledge over which his intellect plays with abiding and almost equal strength. Neither discursive, content with moving upon the surface, nor overborne by emotion, nor bound by prejudice nor pedantry, it seems to many of us to have surpassed in depth, comprehensiveness, and sincerity every other philosophic mind that this country has produced. In keeping with his intellect, Brownson’s lucid, forceful style gives the impression of a prodigious and unchanging momentum. His collected works fill twenty ponderous volumes, some of which have claimed title to further remembrance by holding their vitality in tact after thirty or forty years.

  Throughout, he was active in political discussion; oftenest radical, but at times severely conservative; writing sharply and strongly in journals of his own establishment; always trenchant in speech—always vagrant in thought: a strong, self-willed, and curious Vermonter!

  In the well-known work “Catholic Belief” a list is given of some of the more eminent converts to the Catholic Church in America. The lists include statesmen, judges, generals, authors of note, famous men of Science, and distinguished ecclesiastics; but one name towers like a mountain peak above the rest—the name of Orestes A. Brownson, who is stated, by the author of “Catholic Belief,” to have been called by the famous English statesman, lawyer, and man of letters, Lord Brougham, the “master mind of America.”

  It is pathetic to have to recognize that Brownson is a really forgotten man, for at one time he stood between contending forces a seemingly powerful figure. But against the subtle individualism of the Protestant mind he contended with singularly little result. So doughty a champion probably inspired his new friends with a measure of dismay, while it may fairly be doubted if he ever succeeded in winning a notable convert to his own new way of thinking. In this respect the contrast between him and Father Hecker is striking. The unsympathetic mind commonly regards him as a sort of ecclesiastical recidivist, who, having tried one form of spiritual error, soon abandoned it, only to seek another, which in turn he would presently repudiate. His conceit, of which he always made frank acknowledgment, led him firmly to maintain that all this was consistent progress.