be injured and not benefited, if he were made an object of compassion to the weak-minded and half-hearted.* Certainly, as Dr. Mivart points out, it is not legitimate to use force for

The following very remarkable article appeared in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of May 26th. We gather from it, that the Chinese are addicted in domestic life to some immoralities of a peculiarly disgusting and horrible character:

"A strife is being stirred up in San Francisco which is not without gravity in itself, but which is of far more moment as an illustration of the difficulties inherent in certain widely-vaunted principles of social action. The rush towards the gold diggings which has raised the population of California to some 800,000 souls, of whom 250,000 form the citizens of San Francisco, has included 200,000 Chinese, 75,000 of whom are now resident in the lastnamed city. Not only is this the case, but vessels are said to be chartered for the purpose of continuing the Mongol immigration at the rate of 4,000 or 5,000 a month. It is admitted that the yellow colonists are a race formed after the very likeness of the model man of a certain modern school of politics. In industry they are unremitting; in skill they are apt for every kind of handiwork. In consumption of the necessaries and of the luxuries of life they are thrifty and sparing to the last degree. Ready to turn a hand to anything, apt and adroit in the acquisition of any sort of craftsmanship, content with a remuneration which the unwilling "help" whom they supplant would indignantly refuse, they embody all those virtues which form the celestial band of the political economist. It is admitted, indeed, that in what old-fashioned people used to call the moral virtues, the practice of the Chinese is in some degree opposed to the preaching of Anglo-Saxon respectability. . . . . It has been urged that the Chinese form a suburb or Ghetto of their own in San Francisco, and that the respectability of that city may draw a sanitary cordon around this suburb so as to protect their own homes from invasion. The reply is that fever laughs at sanitary cordons, and that fever is a natural result of the domestic arrangements of the Chinese. This, of course, is a matter with which the police may more readily interfere than in the case of mere moral pestilence. As to the latter, just as it is contrary to the gospel of political economy to attempt to drive away the Chinaman Lecause he eats less, works more, and is generally a far more economical mad ine than the working American, so is it contrary to the express dogmas of a school that is very authoritative in some high places in England to interfere. It is unquestionably the case that two schools of thought are in mortal conflict. The one, referring all things to numeric weight, tends to the establishment of the tyranny of numbers, and to the destruction of any of those checks which tend to paralyze that tyranny. The natural outcome of that school is to make public morality (or private either, for that matter) dependent on public opinion. The other assumes the existence of certain principles, possibly very ill understood, but which cannot be neglected without evil consequences, and with which the good pleasure of a majority has nothing whatever to do. The latter school, indeed, rather tends to distrust the cry of the mass, as being necessarily the most ignorant part of society, and the least fitted to act as rulers. If those people are wrong, and the believers in majority right, it will follow that when the 200,000 Chinese now in California have swollen the number to 600,001―the other inhabitants not having exceeded or having declined below 600,000 -the moral laws of California will be ipso facto reversed, and the Chinese habits, which the people of that part of the world now so loudly reprobate, will become tolerable at least."

the purpose of promoting a return to Catholic unity; but it is most legitimate, and indeed the State's sacred duty, to use force for the purpose of upholding the existent true ethical basis of society.

For our own part-and speaking entirely under correction. -we should be disposed to go a little further. It seems to us, that in various cases Catholics may reasonably wish the existent ethical basis-say in this country-to be conserved, even as regards this or that implied doctrine which they do not account entirely true. We will not indeed attempt to pronounce on individual instances; but merely cite them as illustrating the kind of thing which we mean. For instance,

we can entirely understand a Catholic thinking that it would be an evil to relax the existing laws of Sunday observance, even though they in some degree rest on a non-Catholic doctrine. Again we can entirely understand him thinking, that abolition of the English Establishment would do more harm than good; as removing an important standing and public protest, not only against personal irreligion, but also against the odious notion that the State has no concern with the furtherance of religion. Or take such a question, as that of the laws which forbid marriage with a deceased wife's sister. We do not here consider, whether it would or would not be better for the interests of true religion that those laws should be modified: but we do strongly think, that their modification would be a grave evil as weakening the existent ethical basis of society; even if it were also true, that such evil would be overbalanced by predominating advantage. The " Osservatore Romano" has recently descanted on the blessings which have accrued to England, in comparison with Continental States, from the fact that, even in the midst of doctrinal error, she has carried on her politics in a more religious spirit than they have done. "When I was young," says F. Newman, "the State had a conscience; and the Chief Justice of the day pronounced as an energetic living truth that Christianity was the law of the land." F. O'Reilly, in quoting this passage with assent, adds that even now "there is a" certain "air of Christianity about the law of the land; and so much the better."* Dr. Mivart points out (p. 53) that "a multitude of" English "positive enactments. . repose

* "Irish Monthly," Feb. 1876, p. 165. We have more than once expressed our humble opinion, that Cardinal Manning does very great service by acting on the same principle as that advocated in the text; by co-operating against irreligion and immorality with such a person as that excellent nobleman Lord Shaftesbury, on the basis of those Christian doctrines which are common to the two.

on a more or less distinct theocratic basis; as also do" English "State ceremonials, from the coronation of the chief magistrate downwards." He regards however with evident complacency the prospect, that "these last relics will more or less gradually disappear." We should ourselves regard this as a grievous calamity. Nor do we see in the least why even now such disappearance is inevitable, if Christians of every denomination-instead of surrendering themselves to a quasifatalistic despair-will but pluck up courage, and set modern sophistries at defiance, and contend valiantly for the political status of their religion.

In truth-so far from admitting that the doctrine which we have called ethicism is reasonably confined in its application to such times as the medieval-we maintain confidently the very contrary. We maintain that the claims of that doctrine are more conspicuous and undeniable now than at almost any previous epoch, as being the one available conservative principle. More particularly we maintain, that by no other rationale of political action will Catholics really advanceor indeed do otherwise than grievously compromise - the Church's influence. In what little space remains to us, we can but briefly indicate the reasons for our opinion.

Those monstrous tenets recited by Dr. Mivart, which are now endeavouring to force themselves within the pale of social toleration, are based throughout on the assumption, that no such verities are cognizable as the existence of God and of duty. No one feels this more strongly or has set it forth more admirably, than Dr. Mivart himself. Our argument then is this. (1) If the theory of civicism were carried into practice towards these tenets, the whole public opinion of the country would become infected with scepticism as to the existence of God and of duty. (2) If this calamity happened, we should speak quite inadequately by saying that immorality would frightfully increase; for we ought rather to say, that the very abstract principle of immorality would be enthroned by public opinion. (3) Such a state of public opinion would oppose a barrier which may fairly be called tremendous, against the progress of true religion. We will at once proceed with some little elucidation of what we here intend, reserving however to a future article its full exposition and defence. can hardly be necessary once more to explain, that we are throughout addressing Catholics.

Morality from its very first elements is based on that truth, which Dr. Mivart has so powerfully set forth in his "Lessons from Nature": the essential distinction between duty and pleasure. He who does not recognize that distinction, is

Man

incapable of so much as one properly moral act. finds himself on earth, surrounded by attractions and inducements to action; and he fulfils the end of his creation, precisely so far as he exercises the freewill which God has given him, by placing the pursuit of virtue in absolute pre-eminence over those various other attractions and inducements. But in him who does not accept as certain the existence of duty, the very possibility of virtue is paralyzed: he is rendered incapable of advancing ever so slightly towards the true end of his creation.

On

So much on the sceptical philosophers themselves; and we now take a second step. Consider a case, by no means alas! infrequent in the England of this day. Some given person has not received, or has not duly corresponded with, those educational influences, which would have secured in him the speculative knowledge that God and morality exist, while they would have more or less trained him in the practical habit of obeying God as against antagonistic impulses. Nor again is he one of those indefinitely few men, who can resist surrounding agencies by his own power of philosophical investigation. the other hand circumstances of whatever kind have placed him within the sphere of the existent irreligious contagion. Such being his position, his better nature, or the voice of God within him, summons him to some act of self-sacrifice-of what we called in a former article "anti-impulsive effort"in obedience to God's Law. Quick as lightning the devilsuggested thought arises: "But is there a God? is there a Natural Law? am I capable of anti-impulsive effort? The able thinkers by whom I am surrounded assure me, that these various questions cannot, without manifest unreason, be confidently answered in the affirmative. Why am I to sacrifice a gratification which is certain, in favour of an obligation which (to say the least) is hopelessly doubtful?" Thus his divinelysent opportunity passes away unused, and his virtuous aspirations are suppressed at the source.

The very

But now we proceed to ask-what will be the result, if this fearful scepticism spread from the victims of an irreligious clique-victims (we admit) most unhappily numerous already, but as yet few in comparison-until it extends over the whole nation? What we would urge is this. abstract principle of immorality will be nationally enthroned, and the Church's prospects thus most disastrously clouded,if the people at large ever come to account doubtful the existence of God and of morality; if the people at large even come to regard these great central verities otherwise, than as certain, and fundamental, and established beyond the pos

sibility of question. But if Englishmen do so regard them— -if Englishmen continue to account belief in these verities the very foundation of healthy national existence it is involved in this very statement, that they place under a kind of social ban any one who is known to impugn them. If the religious instinct and feeling now prevalent in England be unhappily extinguished, the Church must lose (we submit) the one hopeful basis of her operations. But such extinction would become a mere matter of time,-and of no very long time either, if social and political toleration were extended to any sect manifestly resting on an atheistic basis, which might start up in vigour and attempt proselytism. It is the proper course therefore for every Catholic Englishman, utterly to repudiate civicism. It is his proper course to stimulate and inflame the existent national hatred of atheism; to foster purposely in his countrymen those views and principles, which would lead them-in the event of such a sect making vigorous aggression to clamour loudly for its forcible repression, and to sympathize intensely with what penal laws might be enacted for its chastisement.

Such is substantially that view of the case, which we hope to develop at greater length in an early number; our present article having of necessity been mainly occupied with a criticism of Dr. Mivart's. Even as regards Dr. Mivart's own theory, there is another particular on which we wish we had space to enlarge. When the Count de Beaulieu wrote his reply to Montalembert, the Holy Father commanded a Letter of congratulation to be sent him, which will be found in our number for April, 1865; pp. 479, 480. In the course of that Letter the Pope lays down, that "if the rights of truth and error be placed on a level, it must necessarily follow from men's proclivity [to evil], that the latter will grow strong and the former be oppressed." The whole scope of Dr. Mivart's argument is in the direction opposed to this; whereas for our own part,-as a mere matter of ethical psychology and apart altogether from the question of authority-we are confident that the thesis, understood with its legitimate explanations, is most entirely true. We hope on a future occasion to give our reasons for so thinking.

We have pursued our criticism throughout, entirely on Dr. Mivart's own ground of reason and experience; but we must at the same time express our regret, that he has not entered on the question of authority. His opinions have certainly (to say the very least) much superficial resemblance to that "Liberal Catholicism," against which the Holy Father has of late been speaking with such singular energy. We