ings, while the rabble sang a hideous song, of which the burden was: J'arracherai plutôt les entrailles d'un prêtre À défaut de cordon pour étrangler un roi. This chorus was heard in Paris in the days of 1793, its reappearance is a sign of the times that men should note, who think that the leopard can change his spots, that the Liberalism and Republicanism of 1876 are essentially different from that of eighty years ago. And what will be the end of all this? Who can say? Would it not be presumptuous to assume a foresight which we cannot possess? We only know that God will draw forth from this wild confusion a glorious resurrection for the Church of France, how we know not; but that it will be so who can doubt? The Catholics have not really lost anything. The solid rock is there, though the waves are rising fast around it, and it will be still standing there when they subside. The peaceful convent of Paray, the hill of La Salette, the Grotto of Lourdes, the love of the Sacred Heart, the favours of the Immaculate Mother of God, these are our hopes for France. Dark and stormy, and hopeless indeed, her future seems to human sight, but the eye of faith can see glimmering through the darkness the faint light of a not fardistant dawn. NOTE TO THE APRIL NUMBER. DURING the last quarter, the following letters have appeared in the "Tablet," which tell their own story :— THE "SATURDAY REVIEW." SIR, I have doubted whether it can be worth my while to notice so wild a statement as has been made about me in the current "Saturday Review," but on the whole perhaps I had better do so. It is there said (p. 674) that "the Editor of the DUBLIN REVIEW must be considered in a peculiar sense the authorized though unofficial spokesman of the Holy See in this country." I know of no fact which can by possibility have been so distorted, as to give the slightest even apparent vestige of foundation for so astounding an affirmation. Certainly it is my highest ambition, that the REVIEW should be carried on in profound submission to the teaching and intimations of the Holy See. But all good Catholics have a similar ambition, when they write on matters directly or indirectly connected with religion; and they are not on that account regarded as "in a peculiar sense official spokesmen of the Holy See." It may be as well to add, that I am writing this without hint or suggestion from any one whomsoever.-I remain, Sir, faithfully yours, THE EDITOR OF THE "DUBLIN REVIEW." THE PROTAGORAS OF PLATO. SIR,-I am sorry to see that a mistake, which first appeared in the "Month" for January, has found its way into the "Short Notices" of the DUBLIN REVIEW. An essay on the Protagoras of Plato, by the Rev. G. T. Kingdon, has been spoken of by both periodicals as if written by a "Father Kingdon." Indeed, the DUBLIN prints S.J. after the name of the author. I believe I am the only one of the name to whom such a description can apply. That I may not, therefore, seem to arrogate to myself the credit that belongs to another, I ask room in your journal to say that I am not the author of the essay. I imagine the author to be a clergyman of the Anglican Church, resident in Cambridge.-Yours truly, G. R. KINGDON, S.J. SIR, I must apologise to F. Kingdon for confusing him with a Protestant author, and I will take care to correct the mistake in our next number. I was misled by the notice in the "Month" to which he refers. That periodical is in general singularly accurate on matters of fact; and least of all was I likely to question its accuracy, when it mentioned a certain author as a member of the Society.-I remain, Sir, faithfully yours, THE EDITOR OF THE "DUBLIN Review." MR. OXENHAM AND "JANUS." SIR,Will you kindly allow me to take this opportunity of correcting an unaccountable mis-statement, which has only just come under my notice at p. 295 of the April No. of the DUBLIN REVIEW, to the effect that I have "advertised myself as the translator of 'Janus."" I have never done so, though I wrote a review of "Janus" for the "Academy" (before the appearance of the English translation), which the writer was possibly thinking of.—I remain, Sir, yours, &c., H. N. OXENHAM. May 29th, 1876. SIR,I owe Mr. Oxenham a sincere apology for the circumstance that, writing from memory, I made an entirely mistaken statement concerning him. It is quite true, as he points out, that he did not advertise himself as the translator of "Janus," but only contributed to the "Academy" a review of that work; which, however, on the whole was very sympathetic. I will take care to correct my mistake in our next number, and must once more express my regret for having inadvertently fallen into it.-I remain, Sir, faithfully yours, THE "DUBLIN " REVIEWER. RELIGIOUS UNITY AND TOLERATION. BY F. RAMIÈRE. [As our readers are well aware, there are some Catholics who, in opposition to the teaching of the Holy See, regard the modern "liberties" -not as calamities necessitated by deplorable circumstances and involving grievous social degradation-but as actual blessings, and as constituting a true advancement in the path of political progress. That admirable writer, M. Le Play, who in many ways has done such signal service, has shown himself nevertheless somewhat infected with this error; though (as F. Ramière points out) it has now much less hold on him than it once had. F. Ramière is perhaps at this moment the most powerful and successful of the Catholic combatants against "Liberal Catholicism"; and having been engaged in a short series of articles on "the conditions of social regeneration," his subject has naturally brought him into contact with M. Le Play. The following paper appeared in the "Études" of last April; and we feel we shall do good service by translating it. Some parts will remind our readers of the article in our present number on "The United States"; and others of that on "The Rights of Conscience." But its general scope is sufficiently distinct from the argument pursued in either of those articles.] 0% UR readers will have doubtless understood, that over and above the peculiar theory which is its immediate object, the present discussion relates to one of the most vast and difficult problems now discussed in modern society; a problem which liberalism has professed to solve by the liberty of conscience and of worships. But by avoiding these revolutionary formulæ, M. Le Play has divested the system which they express of that which is most opposed to orthodoxy and sound reason. Between liberty of worships and toleration there is the difference, which separates an absolute principle from an expedient suggested by prudence; an acknowledged right from a free concession. The assertion of the liberty of worships supposes a negation of all revealed doctrine, and even of all religious truth: toleration, on the contrary, restricted to just limits, may be united with a very firm faith; and the Church has sanctioned it even at Rome, by her invariable treatment of the Jews. But if this derogation from the principle of religious unity may be justified under certain special circumstances, it may not be raised into a general principle. For in that case, the exception, ceasing to be an exception, would, so far from confirming the rule, destroy it. This is just what some excellent Catholics will not see. Dazzled by certain accidental advantages of toleration, they make it a general principle; and they thus ally themselves with liberalism in denying the essential rights of truth. Our preceding article seems to us useful for disabusing this class of adversaries; who, in combating religious unity, believe that they are serving the interests of religion and society. We showed them that the liberty of error is equally destructive to both these orders of interests; that by permitting irreligion to excite against the divine laws all the irregular instincts of the human heart, it gives it full scope to shake to the foundation the essential basis of social order. Unless they deny that influence necessarily exercised by the intellect over the will, which is one of the fundamental laws of human nature, they cannot doubt that diversity of creeds would inevitably produce opposition of tendencies, and thus tend to the disruption of society. We should have the right to confine ourselves to these arguments, founded on the nature of things, and confirmed by the concessions of those political writers who are least open to suspicion. But though they suffice to convince men accustomed to reflect, they will, nevertheless, be probably powerless to convince those men, so numerous in our day, who seek truth by means of observation rather than of reasoning. In truth we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact, that at first blush experience seems here to contradict theory. In proportion as principles are decisive in favour of doctrinal unity, facts, on the contrary, seem favourable to toleration. And this appearance must have had much resemblance to reality, when it could have obtained the adhesion of so impartial and enlightened an observer as M. Le Play. But so far from finding in this circumstance a reason for rejecting the method adopted by the author of "La Réforme Sociale," we shall see that a more careful use of this method gradually diminished the divergence which existed between his too hasty conclusions and the orthodox doctrine. No one has certainly made a better defence for religious liberty on the ground of experimental evidence, than did M. Le Play in the first editions of his great work. When then we find, in the subsequent editions and in other books written under his inspiration, a reply to those arguments,-nothing seems wanting for a refutation of that system, which we had previously shown to be false on the ground of principle. I. We have already cited the arguments with which the history of the three last centuries furnished M. Le Play, for showing that the régime of liberty is preferable to the régime of what he calls "constraint." The study of the present state of society in its diverse aspects confirmed him in this view. His sojourn in countries ruled on opposite principles had enabled him to testify that "the salutary emulation, with which the different clergies are inspired by the vicinity of several communions, gives to the various branches of Christianity an energy worthy of the great centuries in which the Church struggled against paganism. This is different, especially in wealthy States, where one of these communions, being made a State religion, is defended by the political power against the rivalry of other communions. This rivalry does not of course add to the intrinsic truth of the principles in question; but it singularly elevates the character of those who profess them. And it is only through the co-operation of men that To this passage moral law and divine grace act on humanity.” * "A French cleric of the so-called ultramontane school absolutely rejects these conclusions, in a general criticism from which I have derived much instruction. He denies that the contact of dissentients would usefully react on the learning and virtue of a Catholic clergy; so that this contact, condemnable on the ground of principle, would not have in fact the result which I suggested. To this assertion I oppose the following facts, which I shall prove by evidence. The corruption of the Catholic clergy is conspicuously apparent in wealthy countries where other worships are forbidden; whereas there does not exist any example of these scandals in those countries where dissent is tolerated or (still better) dominant." Although ourselves belonging to the so-called ultramontane school, we do not see any difficulty in admitting the facts, which seem to have so strangely embarrassed the cleric in question. M. Le Play seems to us to have perfectly portrayed the nature of the advantages which would result for the true Church from her juxtaposition with heretical sects, when he compared them with the advantages produced by persecution. In fact, the attacks of speculative error are as dangerous a persecution against the truth as are those of the sword. The sophisms, the calumnies, the sarcasins, which are used by such enemies as Luther, Calvin, and Voltaire, certainly do as much harm as the sword and stake of the Neros and Diocletians. These two methods of attack have the same object and the same result; viz., to oppress liberty of conscience, by rousing the passions against it. To attain this object, tyrants have depended on man's dread of torment, and sophists on the allurements of licentiousness. These are intrinsically the two weak sides of human nature; by which she is diverted from the way of duty, if she does not react energetically against herself. What will happen then if this internal weakness be aggravated by external influences? Whether it be persecution which excites fear, or sophistry which stimulates concupiscence,-the same result will be infallibly produced souls too weak to resist will succumb, but souls strong enough to resist will gain most happy fruit from the contest. The soldier when in presence of the enemy is more vigilant, and more on the alert. Knowing that the least omission of duty on his part may be fatal, he has his arms continually in his hand, and yields no step to the aggressor. Every new attack which he successfully repels increases his courage, together with his merit; and he gains glory from the war, in proportion to the number of his own party who are lying victims around him. We acknowledge then most readily, that the liberty granted to opposing religions may offer to the Catholic Church some of those advantages, which made the eras of persecution so glorious to her. But could we thence conclude that this régime is preferable? To arrive at such a conclusion, one must forget the nature of the Church. Suppose that she ceased to be the mother of souls and of all souls, nothing would then prevent her from sacrificing to the interest of her glory the salvation of all those, whom the persecution of the sword or the seductions of error have led to apostatize. But as God has confided |